"Buy land," says the old investment axiom. "They're not making any more of it." And yet, depending on which country you come from, some U.S. lawmakers would deny you the right.
Between 2009 and 2016, China's global expenditures on agricultural land increased more than tenfold, according to data cited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Increasingly, both Republicans and Democrats agree this is a serious problem requiring a legislative solution.
Texas state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R–Brenham) introduced a bill that would bar any "citizen of China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia" from buying property in the state. While Kolkhorst said the bill would not apply to American citizens or lawful permanent residents, the bill's text made no such distinction. (She later modified the bill to make an exception for U.S. citizens and permanent residents and to exempt home purchases.) Gov. Greg Abbott indicated he would sign the bill if passed.
In January, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was also considering a ban on Chinese investors or companies purchasing property in the state.
Kolkhorst, Abbott, and DeSantis are all Republicans, but this issue has support across the aisle: While running for governor of Georgia in 2022 against incumbent Brian Kemp, Democrat Stacey Abrams told Fox News that Kemp was "placing farmland in the state of Georgia in the hands of, basically, a nation that has proven itself to be a national security threat," referencing China. Abrams dinged Kemp for a state-funded website that encouraged Chinese investment in Georgia.
In January, Sens. Jon Tester (D–Mont.) and Mike Rounds (R–S.D.) introduced a bill, the Promoting Agriculture Safeguards and Security (PASS) Act, "aimed at preventing China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from investing in, purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring U.S. farmland." Reps. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.) and Rick Crawford (R–Ark.) introduced a bill of the same name last year.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency assemblage, reviews certain foreign purchases of U.S. properties and has the power to block any it disapproves of. The PASS Act would add the secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services to the CFIUS in order to approve or deny agricultural purchases.
Tester said he would not "let our foreign adversaries weaken our national security by buying up American farmland," with Rounds adding that the bill would ensure that "American interests are protected by blacklisting foreign adversaries from purchasing land or businesses involved in agriculture." (Representatives in Tester's and Rounds' offices did not respond to Reason's requests for comment on why Chinese purchases of agricultural land constituted national security risks.)
But the bills are driven by an overblown panic.
For one thing, despite the recent ramp-up, China's share of American land is quite small. In 2021, the USDA's Farm Service Agency reported that foreign investors own around 40 million acres, which constitutes just over 3 percent of all privately held agricultural land. Of all foreign-owned land in the U.S., China's share comprised around 384,000 acres—0.9 percent of the total. In fact, on the list of countries that own the largest shares of American agricultural land, China's portion is consigned to "Other." (Critics note that the USDA's numbers are incomplete and reporting is not universal.)
In February 2022, Chinese company Fufeng Group Ltd. purchased 370 acres near Grand Forks, North Dakota, with the intent to build a $700 million corn-milling facility. But given that the land was less than 15 miles from Grand Forks Air Force Base, the deal raised suspicions among politicians and government officials. According to Sen. John Hoeven (R–N.D.), the base's aerospace activities "will form the backbone of U.S. military communications across the globe."
In a January letter to Hoeven, Andrew Hunter, an assistant secretary for the Air Force, stipulated that the mill "presents a significant threat to national security with both near- and long-term risks of significant impacts to our operations in the area," though he did not give any specifics. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R–S.D.) said a nearby mill could "intercept sensitive U.S. military communications."
In July 2022, 19 Republican House members wrote a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack asking for action against Chinese purchases of agricultural land, citing the country's status as a "global rival" and previous cases of Chinese nationals attempting to "steal U.S. seed DNA information."
For its part, China has struggled in recent months to feed its 1.4 billion people. In August, the Chinese government warned that record heats and a monthslong drought posed a "severe threat" to the autumn harvest. In that context, it makes sense that Chinese companies would invest in arable land in another country.
Regarding an outright ban like the PASS Act, Stewart Baker, host of the Cyberlaw podcast and a former Department of Homeland Security official who was in charge of the department's participation in the CFIUS, tells Reason, "I'm pretty skeptical that we need to do that." A desire to ban foreign investment is "a surprisingly familiar inclination all around the world," Baker says, as there's "something particularly atavistic about [someone] controlling your food supply," perhaps engendered by farmers upset to be outbid by an unfamiliar foreign investor.
Baker concedes that the proximity of the Grand Forks mill to the air base could allow a malign actor to intercept communications and that it has happened before, but "you probably don't have to buy a farm to do that." Similarly, Chinese nationals have indeed stolen agribusiness trade secrets, but that hardly constitutes a national security threat.
The outsize concern over foreign investors is not unique: A generation ago, Japan was the economic boogeyman that threatened to supplant America's superiority and buy up our land in the process. In the mid-1980s, Japan—flush with cash and experiencing red-hot real estate and financial sectors—invested heavily in foreign markets. To many Americans' consternation, this included major purchases of high-profile U.S. landmarks, like Columbia Pictures, Rockefeller Center, and California's Pebble Beach golf resort.
In both fiction and nonfiction alike, writers depicted Japan—sometimes in reductive or racist terms—as militant and devious, singularly focused on world economic domination, possibly as revenge for its defeat in World War II. The novelist Michael Crichton accused Japan of trying to turn the U.S. into its "economic colony."
And yet within a few years, the bubble burst. Japan's stock index fell 60 percent, real estate prices fell 30 percent, and bankruptcies spiked into the billions of dollars per year. Rockefeller Center and Pebble Beach were sold, the latter for a 40 percent loss. Rather than an invincible economic juggernaut, Japan entered into a "lost decade," a yearslong period of economic stagnation.
China may indeed have designs on stealing American security or trade secrets, but those concerns can be mitigated without an outright ban on property ownership. Not to mention, any further efforts to restrict such purchases constitute an encroachment on the rights of Americans to sell their own property in a transaction they deem to be mutually beneficial.
Gary Bridgeford sold land to Fufeng for $2.6 million, one of three property owners to do so. "People hear the China stuff and there's concern," he told CNBC. "But everyone has a phone in their pocket that was probably made in China. Where do you draw the line?"
The post China's Purchases of U.S. Land Stoke Bipartisan Panic, Just Like Japan's Did In the 1980s appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Food freedom is spreading. And there's perhaps no better evidence of that fact than the growing number of states making it easier for farmers to sell "raw," or unpasteurized, milk to eager consumers.
This week, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed House Bill 1515, which would legalize dairy farms to sell raw milk to consumers. "A debate over whether dairy farms should be able to sell unpasteurized milk pitted proponents of consumer freedom against advocates for public health," the Bismarck Tribune reported this week.
Currently, farmers in North Dakota may only legally sell raw milk to consumers who purchase a share of a cow, sometimes known as a herd share.
Similar bills are currently under consideration in Iowa, Idaho, and Washington. And a Wyoming bill could expand raw-milk sales even further than would the aforementioned bills.
Raw milk is a litmus test of sorts for food freedom—which I've long defined as a person's right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, and eat the foods of their own choosing.
On the one hand, opponents of raw milk, including public-health bureaucrats and the nation's largest sellers of pasteurized milk, argue raw milk should be banned because it may contain pathogens that could sicken or kill consumers.
The FDA, which was forced by a federal judge to reverse course and ban interstate sales of raw milk in 1987, regulates a host of raw foods (from sprouts to melons to sushi) that may contain harmful pathogens. While the agency may issue warnings about and recalls of those foods when they are found to contain pathogens, on raw milk the agency's position is an absolutist no.
"No one disputes that pasteurization helps kill harmful pathogens," I explained in a 2011 Washington Times op-ed. "But where the FDA claims to see a mountain, most states see a molehill."
On the other hand, "raw milk has become popular in recent years as part of the local food movement," NPR reported in a 2015 piece on the spread of raw milk. "[Consumers] say they buy raw milk because it doesn't contain the growth hormone rGBH, they like the taste, and they enjoy having a direct connection to the food they eat."
Supporters also note that many conventional dairy farmers who sell pasteurized milk are struggling and that raw milk sales may provide a lifeline in the form of higher margins. In December, such an argument won the day in Wisconsin—America's leading dairy state—when the state farm bureau reversed its longstanding opposition to legal raw milk sales.
More and more, farmers, consumers, and lawmakers are favoring such sales. As of August 2022, according to data provided by the nonprofit Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, where I serve on the board, at least 10 states allow some form of retail sales of raw milk, at least 18 states allow on-farm sales, and at least eight states allow herd shares. A similar raw-milk map, produced in 2015 by the National Conference of State Legislatures and reproduced here, shows state laws governing raw milk sales have improved noticeably across the country in less than a decade.
None of this is to say that consuming raw milk (or any food) comes without risk—for producers and consumers alike. But driving raw milk sales underground won't make raw milk safer, I note in my 2016 book Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable. Ultimately, adults should have the right to weigh risks and make choices about the foods we eat.
The post State Lawmakers Help Farmers by Improving Consumer Access to Raw Milk appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>On Tuesday, legislators in North Dakota began considering a bill that would ban "sexually explicit" material from public libraries in the state—and levy up to 30 days of imprisonment for those who refuse to comply with the law. The bill has already drawn the ire of civil liberties groups, who point out its blatantly unconstitutional provisions. If passed, the bill would ban broad swaths of literature—though almost none of it could be considered legally obscene.
"Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court set the high constitutional bar that defines obscenity—a narrow, well-defined category of unprotected speech that excludes any work with serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value," reads a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Dakota. "Since then, few if any books have been deemed obscene."
The bill was introduced last week by House Majority Leader Mike Lefor (R–Dickinson.) If passed, the bill would ban any "business establishment frequented by minors, or where minors are or may be invited as a part of the general public," including public walkways, from displaying any visual material "which exploits, is devoted to, or is principally made up of depictions of nude or partially denuded human figures posed or presented in a manner to exploit sex, lust, or perversion for commercial gain." Further, the bill provides a list of acts and ideas that it considers "sexually explicit"—a list which includes "sexual identity," "gender identity," and perhaps most confusingly, "sex-based classifications."
It provides exceptions for "works of art that, when taken as a whole, have serious artistic significance, or works of anthropological significance, or materials used in science courses, including materials used in biology, anatomy, physiology, or sexual education classes." Further, in an unusual departure from similar book-banning pushes, the proposed law explicitly exempts any "school" from the law, meaning that school libraries will still be able to provide banned materials.
Though the bill applies to a broad range of locations, it seems to have been explicitly created to ban certain "sexually explicit" books from public libraries. On Tuesday, Lefor told The Bismarck Tribune that he drafted the bill after seeing nude drawings in the graphic novel Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human. "I think the content of it is disgusting, that at the very least, public libraries should put it in a restricted area where [children] need to get permission from their parents to take a book out like this," Lefor said. "This is not a way to raise our kids, and we have to do everything we can to make sure that this doesn't get into the hands of children, especially without their parents' knowledge."
Legislators began formally considering the legislation on Tuesday. According to KFYR, a local news station, 63 of the 73 pieces of testimony submitted to the bill's committee were in opposition to the bill.
"Why does the North Dakota Public Library, funded with taxpayer dollars, need to purchase and promote obscene and pornographic material? What is the social redeeming value in doing that? How does that make our state better?" testified one resident.
In opposition, Cody Schuler, an advocacy manager with the ACLU of North Dakota, said, "Each of us gets to choose what books we read and what information we access. But we don't get to choose that for other people. Doing so is un-American and unconstitutional."
As Schuler notes, the bill is blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has long held a very strict definition of obscenity—one that clearly conflicts with the ban proposed by Lefor's bill. In the 1973 case Miller v. California, the Supreme Court defined material as legally obscene if "(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
However, much of what would be banned by Lefor's bill does not meet this definition—not only would the graphic novels and sex education books that seem to be the target of the bill be constitutionally protected but so too would other expression targeted by the law—like depictions of gay or transgender people, which might be banned for showing "sexual" or "gender identity."
"There are some books you will think children shouldn't read and some books that you hope no one will read. But we are steadfast in our belief that we do not get to decide what others read – and neither should the government," Schuler said in the ACLU press release. "If you don't like a book, don't read it. The First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech and the right to access information has created a beautiful marketplace of ideas in our country."
The post North Dakota Legislators Consider Bill To Ban 'Sexually Explicit' Material From Public Libraries appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The Good: We have divided government. Since Democrats no longer control Congress, they can't bankrupt America quite so fast!
The Bad: Prediction markets, which I touted as the best guide to elections, didn't do so well. Yes, they correctly said Republicans would take the House, but they'd also predicted Republicans would take the Senate. Polls and statistical modelers like Nate Silver did a bit better this time. They also said Republicans would win both, but they gave them only a slight edge.
As I write this Wednesday morning, Republicans have (according to ElectionBettingOdds.com, the site Maxim Lott created that tracks election betting around the world) a 19 percent chance of winning the Senate.
Nineteen percent isn't zero; they could still win the Senate, but Republicans don't have the 60 to 70 percent chance that bettors gave them in recent weeks.
The Good: Bettors at least adjust their predictions quickly.
Tuesday night, while clods on CBS still said "Democrats and Republicans battle for control of the House," those of us who follow the betting already knew that Republicans would win the House.
Historically, bettors have a great track record. Across 730 candidate chances we've tracked, when something is expected to happen 70 percent of the time, it actually happens about 70 percent of the time.
That's because people with money on the line try harder than pundits to be right. They also adjust quickly when they see they've made a mistake.
At 8:23 p.m., with just 12 percent of the New Hampshire vote counted, bettors gave Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan more than a 90 percent chance of winning the Senate seat, up from 63 percent earlier in the day. You wouldn't have noticed that shift watching TV. The AP didn't call the race until 11:39 p.m.
Bettors also failed to predict President Donald Trump's win in 2016. But they at least gave him a 20 percent chance, much higher than most "expert" statistical modelers, like the Princeton Election Consortium, which gave him an absurd 0.01 percent chance.
Big picture: Betting odds remain the single best and fastest-updating predictor.
The Good: Tuesday night, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' odds of becoming the Republican presidential nominee jumped from 16 percent to 27 percent, while Donald Trump's odds fell to 18 percent. That's probably because of DeSantis' nearly 20-point blowout win in a swing state. I put this in the "good" category because, watching Trump on TV Tuesday night, I'm reminded that he's an ignorant bully who only cares about himself. His mere presence on the public stage hurts America by creating more division and hate. His election "denier" candidates like Doug Mastriano, Doug Bolduc, Tudor Dixon, and John Gibbs all lost.
Also, if DeSantis is nominated in 2024, bettors give him a 74 percent chance of winning, whereas they give Trump just a 47 percent chance.
The Good: If Vice President Kamala Harris is nominated, bettors give her just a 36 percent chance of becoming president.
The Ugly: Long-term incumbents won again: Sens. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), and Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), who have spent 29 years in Congress; Sens. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) won, too (42 years).
The Good: Iowa passed an amendment protecting gun rights. Three states passed measures protecting reproductive freedom. Anti-abortion measures in two states lost. Maryland and Missouri legalized recreational weed.
Maybe Good: Ranked choice voting leads in Nevada.
The Bad: Recreational weed lost in Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Sports gambling lost in California. California also banned e-cigarettes, which will create a new criminal black market and kill more cigarette smokers.
The Ugly: Schumer will probably be Senate Majority Leader again.
The Ugly: The Wall Street Journal reports: "Europe Doubles Down on Big Government" with "politicians adding hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs, guaranteeing business loans."
Won't voters ever ask government to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE?
It's so sad. All around the world, we don't learn.
By the way, ElectionBettingOdds.com also tracks football odds. The Buffalo Bills, despite losing last Sunday, still lead the Super Bowl pack. The Eagles, Chiefs follow; 49ers, Ravens and Cowboys follow.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
The post The Election Betting Markets Fell Short. They're Still the Most Flexible Predictor. appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Voters on Tuesday approved the legalization of recreational marijuana in Maryland and Missouri while rejecting similar measures in Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Meanwhile, voters in five Texas cities passed ballot measures that bar local police from issuing citations or making arrests for low-level marijuana possession. But the most striking election result for drug policy reformers looking beyond the ongoing collapse of marijuana prohibition happened in Colorado, where a broad psychedelic decriminalization measure is winning by two points with 80 percent of votes counted.
Prior to yesterday's elections, 37 states had approved marijuana for medical purposes, and 19 of them also had legalized recreational use. The Maryland and Missouri results raise the latter number to 21.
The outcome in Maryland, a blue state where surveys indicated strong support for marijuana legalization, was widely expected. But the margin of victory is still impressive: Nearly two-thirds of voters approved a measure that legalizes possession and home cultivation for adults 21 or older while instructing the state legislature to authorize commercial production and distribution. The outcome in Missouri, a red state where support for legalization fell short of a majority in most pre-election polls, was more surprising: Although the initiative was controversial even among reformers, it won by about six points.
While Arkansas and North Dakota both have medical marijuana programs, voters in those states evidently remain skeptical of broader legalization. The Arkansas and North Dakota initiatives lost by about 12 points and 10 points, respectively. The outcome in South Dakota, where a lawsuit backed by Gov. Kristi Noem blocked a 2020 legalization initiative that was approved by 54 percent of voters, was more disappointing: Even though the 2022 initiative was shorn of potentially controversial provisions authorizing commercial sales, it lost by six points.
Unlike all of those states, Texas has not legalized marijuana even for medical use (except for low-THC CBD products). Possession of two ounces or less is still a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a maximum fine of $2,000, and those penalties are doubled for amounts between two and four ounces. The penalties for possessing cannabis extracts, which are treated as a felony even in cases involving tiny amounts, are even more severe.
This is the context in which Austin voters last May approved an ordinance that generally prohibits the city's police department from citing or arresting people for "Class A or Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana offenses"—i.e., offenses involving less than four ounces. Yesterday voters in Denton, Elgin, Harker Heights, Killeen, and San Marcos passed similar measures.
Compared to outright legalization or decriminalization, which would require amending or repealing state laws, these are baby steps. But they may be the best that Texans who oppose pot prohibition can manage for the foreseeable future. Although surveys indicate that most Texans favor legalization, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who was re-elected yesterday, is not listening to them. Abbott supports downgrading possession of two ounces or less to a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by no more than a $500 fine. But otherwise, he sees nothing wrong with the way Texas treats cannabis consumers and the people who supply them.
"Texans have shown that they want major cannabis law reforms in Texas via polling, legislative engagement, and now at the local ballot box," says Jax James, who directs the Texas chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "This will have a positive impact on the almost half a million people living in these cities. While these local advancements are important in mitigating harm on citizens and reprioritizing law enforcement time, they result in a patchwork of differing marijuana enforcement policies based on location. It is time for lawmakers to take steps to enact statewide reform when they convene in January 2023."
While Texas lags behind on drug policy reform, Colorado seems to be forging ahead. If its lead holds up, Colorado's Proposition 122 will eliminate civil and criminal penalties for a wide range of noncommercial conduct related to consumption of five natural psychedelics: psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine, ibogaine, and mescaline. The measure allows adults 21 or older to produce, possess, transport, obtain, or share those substances.
Like a groundbreaking initiative that Oregonians approved in 2020, Proposition 122 would eventually allow adults to obtain and consume psilocybin at state-licensed businesses. Also like Oregon's initiative, Proposition 122 does not require that the customers of those businesses have any particular medical or psychiatric diagnosis. But Colorado's initiative covers a wider range of substances and conduct. It is broader than any psychedelic reform enacted until now, pointing the way to less punitive, more tolerant drug policies that go beyond winding down the war on weed.
That prospect alarms The Denver Post's editorial board. Proposition 122 "goes too far, too fast for Colorado," it warned last week. The Post acknowledged evidence that psychedelics "can help treat debilitating post-traumatic stress disorders, treatment-resistant depression, severe anxiety, and other mental illness." But it objected to the initiative's broad decriminalization provisions because they might allow psychedelic use outside of a "medical" context.
"While the intent of legalizing possession and cultivation is for medical treatment," the Post said, "we fear a robust market for recreational use would thrive. Increased legal tolerance will increase demand, which will increase the temptation for profiteering."
In the Post's view, increased tolerance is bad, because people might use psychedelics for fun. Judging from the election returns so far, Coloradans have decided that is a nightmare they can live with.
The post Pot Prohibition Continues Collapsing, and Psychedelic Bans Could Be Next appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>North Dakota voters, who approved medical marijuana in 2016 by a 28-point margin, declined to go further on Tuesday, rejecting a ballot initiative that would have legalized recreational use. With 79 percent of ballots reported, 55 percent of voters had said no to Statutory Measure 2, which would have allowed adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and grow up to three plants at home. The North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services would have been charged with licensing and regulating commercial production and distribution.
Beginning a month after the election, Measure 2 would have eliminated criminal and civil penalties for possession and cultivation within the specified limits. It also would have allowed sharing of marijuana among adults "without consideration." Use would have been limited to private property "not generally accessible by the public." Regulators would have been required to write rules for the recreational cannabis industry by October 1, 2023.
Although North Dakota voters approved medical marijuana by a wide margin in 2016, three-fifths of them rejected a marijuana legalization initiative two years later. David Owen, who chaired the campaign for the unsuccessful 2018 initiative and tried again with a revised version this year, emphasized the "restricted, regulated, [and] controlled" market that would be allowed by Measure 2, saying, "This is a marijuana program that is very, very similar to the one that passed the North Dakota State House."
Supporters of Measure 2 included state Rep. Matthew Ruby (R–Minot), who said it would "create good jobs" and provide "new economic opportunities" for South Dakota farmers. "With reasonable controls and regulations in place, this measure represents a responsible approach to legalization," Ruby said. "Our neighbors in Montana are demonstrating that cannabis legalization can work successfully. Now it's our turn to move forward."
The chief opposition to Measure 2 came from Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), operating under the banner of Healthy and Productive North Dakota. "We believe that the health, safety and economic harms of recreational marijuana legalization far outweigh the perceived social benefits," SAM said. "We are medical doctors, employers, treatment providers, drug prevention professionals, business owners, employees, law enforcement officers, and parents. Healthy and Productive North Dakota believes that ND communities should not be victims of the commercialization and normalization of marijuana."
According to a Ballotpedia tally, Measure 2's supporters had received more than $500,000 in contributions as of September 9. The opposition had not reported any contributions at that point.
The post North Dakota Voters Reject Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Voters in at least five states will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana this fall, and a similar measure may yet qualify for the ballot in one more state. If all six initiatives are successful, recreational use will be legal in half of the states, underlining the untenability of continuing federal prohibition.
In Arkansas, where medical use was legalized in 2016, voters will consider a ballot initiative that would allow adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational use. The initiative also would authorize current medical dispensaries, plus up to 40 additional licensees, to serve the recreational market, with sales taxed at 10 percent.
Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered the secretary of state's office to include the marijuana initiative on the ballot, despite a dispute about whether it complies with state law. The Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners this month deemed the ballot title misleading, a conclusion that Responsible Growth Arizona, the organization backing the initiative, is challenging in state court. Depending on the outcome of that litigation, the votes on the measure may not actually be counted.
The 2016 initiative that legalized medical use passed with support from 53 percent of voters. A Talk Business & Politics/Hendrix College poll conducted in February found that 54 percent of likely voters thought marijuana should be "legal for adults," compared to 32 percent who said it should be legal only for medical use and 11 percent who thought it should not be legal at all. Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican who ran the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from 2001 to 2003, opposes the initiative and has urged law enforcement agencies to "stand firm" against it.
In Maryland, where legislators authorized medical use in 2013, voters will consider a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to allow adults 21 or older to "use and possess cannabis." Possessing less than 10 grams (about a third of an ounce) is currently a civil offense punishable by a $100 fine, while possessing more (up to 50 pounds) is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $1,000. The amendment also says the Maryland General Assembly "shall, by law, provide for the use, distribution, possession, regulation, and taxation of cannabis within the state."
A Goucher College poll conducted in March found that 62 percent of Maryland residents favored the legalization of recreational marijuana. In April, Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, allowed a bill laying out the rules that will apply if voters approve the amendment to become law without his signature.
In Missouri, where voters approved medical marijuana in 2018, this year's ballot initiative would amend the state constitution to "remove state prohibitions on purchasing, possessing, consuming, using, delivering, manufacturing, and selling marijuana for personal use" by adults 21 or older. It also would "allow persons with certain marijuana-related non-violent offenses to petition for release from incarceration or parole and probation and have records expunged."
The amendment would allow public possession of up to three ounces and home cultivation of up to six flowering plants. It would "establish a lottery selection process to award licenses and certificates" for commercial producers and distributors, whose sales would be subject to a 6 percent tax, plus local taxes up to 3 percent.
The 2018 initiative allowing medical use passed with support from two-thirds of voters. A Survey USA poll conducted in July found that 62 percent of registered voters thought recreational marijuana use should be legal.
In North Dakota, a ballot initiative that was approved for the ballot today would allow adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce in public and grow up to three plants at home. It would charge the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services or another agency designated by the legislature with writing the rules for commercial production and distribution. Consumers would pay the standard 5 percent sales tax.
North Dakota voters approved medical marijuana in 2016 by a 28-point margin. But two years later, voters rejected an initiative that would have legalized recreational use by a 19-point margin.
Two years ago in South Dakota, 54 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that would have legalized recreational marijuana. Last November, in response to a lawsuit backed by Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, the South Dakota Supreme Court overturned that initiative, concluding that it violated the state's "single subject" rule for constitutional amendments. Reformers are trying again this year with an "initiated state statute" that would "legalize the use and possession of recreational marijuana" by adults 21 or older.
The initiative would impose a one-ounce limit on public possession while allowing home cultivation of up to three plants and private possession of the marijuana they produce in jurisdictions without state-licensed retailers. But according to South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, the organization sponsoring the initiative, it "does not include business licensing, sales, or regulations." So unless the state legislature decided to authorize commercial production and distribution, homegrown marijuana would be the only legal source for recreational consumers.
The ruling against the 2020 amendment did not affect a separate initiative authorizing medical use, which passed with support from 70 percent of voters. A Mason Dixon poll conducted the month before the South Dakota Supreme Court nixed recreational legalization found that just 39 percent of registered voters approved of the way Noem had handled the issue while 51 percent disapproved.
In Oklahoma, where voters approved medical marijuana by a 14-point margin in 2018, they could have a chance to go further in November. State officials are verifying signatures for a ballot initiative that would legalize recreational use and authorize businesses to serve that market. Recreational sales would be subject to a 15 percent excise tax and initially limited to existing medical marijuana dispensaries. After two years, additional suppliers could apply for licenses. Local governments would be allowed to regulate retailers but not ban them or cap their number.
If Oklahomans do approve recreational marijuana, that step could be important beyond that state's borders. As economists Robin Goldstein and Daniel Sumner note in Can Legal Weed Win?, Oklahoma has become an improbable model for marijuana reformers troubled by the problems that states like California have encountered in trying to displace the black market. Medical marijuana in Oklahoma is strikingly cheap and accessible, thanks largely to fast application approvals, light regulation, and modest taxes. "When the bluest of blue-state liberal activists are looking to red states for guidance on regulatory policy," Goldstein and Sumner observe, "you know something's gone haywire."
So far 19 states, accounting for more than two-fifths of the U.S. population, have legalized recreational use, while another 18 allow medical use. But federal law still treats state-licensed marijuana businesses as criminal enterprises. President Joe Biden opposes repealing federal prohibition, and Democrats have squandered the opportunity to enact even relatively modest marijuana reforms. With Republicans poised to take control of the House and/or the Senate this fall, the prospects of eliminating the ever-growing conflict between state and federal marijuana laws seem dim for the foreseeable future.
The post Six More States Could Legalize Recreational Marijuana This Fall appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>This week an Oklahoma judge ruled that Johnson & Johnson should pay $572 million to "abate" a "public nuisance" the company created in that state by minimizing the hazards and overselling the benefits of prescription opioids. A few months ago, a North Dakota judge rejected a very similar claim against Purdue Pharma under a nearly identical "public nuisance" statute.
The difference between those two decisions partly reflects the difference between broad and narrow understandings of "public nuisance." But the diametrically opposed rulings also pit a simple narrative of the "opioid crisis" with a clear set of villains against a more complicated story that's closer to the truth.
Ruling against Johnson & Johnson on Monday, Cleveland County District Court Judge Thad Balkman claimed the "current stage of the Opioid Crisis…still primarily involves prescription opioids." According to records collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), however, pain pills were involved in just 30 percent of opioid-related deaths in 2017. Most of those cases also involved other drugs, mainly heroin and illicit fentanyl or fentanyl analogs, which were implicated in three-quarters of opioid-related deaths.
Balkman likewise seems to have accepted at face value Oklahoma's assertion that "opioids are highly addictive." The evidence also contradicts that claim.
In 2015, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 2 percent of Americans who took prescription opioids, including nonmedical users, qualified for a diagnosis of "opioid use disorder," a broad category that is not limited to addiction. By comparison, about 9 percent of past-year drinkers had an "alcohol use disorder."
A 2018 BMJ analysis of medical records found evidence of "opioid misuse" in 1 percent of patients who took pain pills after surgery. While studies find that misuse is more common among chronic pain patients, a 2016 New England Journal of Medicine article concluded that "rates of carefully diagnosed addiction" average less than 8 percent.
That study, which was co-authored by Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, noted that "addiction occurs in only a small percentage of persons who are exposed to opioids—even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities." Yet Balkman deemed such statements by Johnson & Johnson "false, misleading, and deceptive."
The judge likewise faulted the company for suggesting that prescription analgesics pose a "low danger" when used for legitimate medical purposes. But according to a 2015 Pain Medicine study, the fatal overdose rate among North Carolina patients who received opioid prescriptions in 2010 was 0.02 percent.
Balkman also thought Johnson & Johnson was wrong to say opioids could be appropriate for treating chronic pain and wrong to suggest that undertreated patients might look like addicts as they desperately sought relief. Yet as South Central Judicial District Judge James Hill pointed out when he dismissed North Dakota's lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in May, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has endorsed both of those propositions.
Balkman views the very idea that pain is undertreated as suspect in light of the dramatic increase in opioid prescriptions since the 1990s. But inadequate pain treatment can and does coincide with widespread misuse, and the problem has been aggravated in recent years by ham-handed efforts to reduce prescriptions, as the FDA, the CDC, and the American Medical Association have recognized.
Judge Hill concluded that the link between pharmaceutical companies and opioid abuse asserted by North Dakota "depends on an extremely attenuated, multi-step, and remote causal chain." It ignores the role of regulators who establish rules for opioid use, doctors who exercise independent medical judgment in deciding when and how to prescribe these drugs, and people who choose to take pain pills for nonmedical purposes, the vast majority of whom are not bona fide pain patients.
Hill did not mention the life circumstances that make the psychoactive effects of opioids powerfully appealing to a small percentage of people who try them. Those are the real roots of the "opioid crisis," and they cannot be remedied by litigation.
© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
The post The False Premises of the Ruling Against Johnson & Johnson appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Yesterday's ruling against Johnson & Johnson in Oklahoma, which marks the first time a court has held a pharmaceutical company liable for the "opioid crisis," hinges on a broad definition of "public nuisance" that may not stand up on appeal. It contrasts sharply with a decision last May by a North Dakota judge who dismissed a similar lawsuit against Purdue Pharma that was partly based on a nearly identical statute.
Cleveland County District Court Judge Thad Balkman ruled that Johnson & Johnson should pay $572 million to "abate" a "public nuisance" the company created in Oklahoma by minimizing the hazards and overselling the benefits of prescription opioids. As relevant here, the statute on which Balkman relied says a public nuisance "consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission…annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others" or "in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property."
Although the prototypical public nuisance involves using your property in a way that negatively affects your neighbors, Balkman argues that "there is nothing in this text that suggests an actionable nuisance requires the use of or a connection to real or personal property." Alternatively, he says, "in the event Oklahoma's nuisance law does require the use of property, the State has sufficiently shown that Defendants pervasively, systematically and substantially used real and personal property, private and public, as well as the public roads, buildings and land of the State of Oklahoma, to create this nuisance."
In other words, Johnson & Johnson's marketing practices required various uses of property in Oklahoma, so the bad consequences ascribed to them can reasonably be viewed as a public nuisance. The company's representatives traveled on "public roads" when they visited doctors, for example, so if they misled those doctors about the dangers of prescription opioids during those visits, that satisfies any requirement that a public nuisance involve a harmful use of property. Yet this understanding of public nuisances is broad enough to cover all manner of torts that are usually conceived as qualitatively different.
South Central Judicial District Judge James Hill noted that problem when he dismissed North Dakota's lawsuit against Purdue Pharma last May. One of the claims against the company involved a public nuisance statute very similar to Oklahoma's. Hill noted that "North Dakota courts have not extended the nuisance statute to cases involving the sale of goods." He cited a 1993 case in which the Tioga Public School District #15 of Williams County, North Dakota, argued that the sale of acoustical plaster containing asbestos qualified as a public nuisance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which handled the case because it involved an out-of-state defendant, observed that "North Dakota cases applying the state's nuisance statute all appear to arise in the classic context of a landowner or other person in control of property conducting an activity on his land in such a manner as to interfere with the property rights of a neighbor." The 8th Circuit worried about the consequences of venturing beyond that "classic context":
To interpret the nuisance statute in the manner espoused by Tioga would in effect totally rewrite North Dakota tort law. Under Tioga's theory, any injury suffered in North Dakota would give rise to a cause of action under section 43-02-01 regardless of the defendant's degree of culpability or of the availability of other traditional tort law theories of recovery. Nuisance thus would become a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort, a development we cannot imagine the North Dakota legislature intended when it enacted the nuisance statute.
Hill said he "agrees with the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit in Tioga." As in that case, he said, the state in its lawsuit against Purdue was "clearly seeking to extend the application of the nuisance statute to a situation where one party has sold to another a product that later is alleged to constitute a nuisance." Hill added:
The reality is that Purdue has no control over its product after it is sold to distributors, then to pharmacies, and then prescribed to consumers, i.e. after it enters the market. Purdue cannot control how doctors prescribe its products and it certainly cannot control how individual patients use and respond to its products, regardless of any warning or instruction Purdue may give.
Judging from the cases cited by Judge Balkman, Oklahoma courts have not read that state's nuisance law to cover situations like this either—until now. Announcing its plans to appeal Balkman's decision, Johnson & Johnson argues that it "disregards 100 years of precedent in public nuisance law, which traditionally has been applied to resolve property disputes, not lawsuits involving the sale of goods."
In addition to his debatable definition of "public nuisance," Balkman's ruling relied on several misconceptions about prescription opioids, which will be the subject of my column tomorrow.
The post The Oklahoma Ruling Against Johnson & Johnson Hinges on a Sweeping Definition of 'Public Nuisance' appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Powerful forces in North Dakota have once again targeted the state's popular food freedom law, but it appears the laws' supporters have successfully beaten back these attacks from state lawmakers and regulators.
The 2017 law, found here, "allows direct sales of many foods by a producer in the state to consumers in the state," I wrote last year. "That includes direct sales of virtually any foods—from apple slices to homemade pickles to homemade zucchini bread—except meat or raw dairy products."
In that column, I detailed how North Dakota health regulators were attempting to use the rulemaking process to undermine the law. As I explained, that effort failed in large part due to the fact the law doesn't allow the health department to draft such rules.
But the failure led some lawmakers opposed to food freedom—led by a lawmaker who's also a retired grocery owner and former head of the state's grocers' association, just in case you were wondering how the grocers' lobby feels about a little competition—to attempt to amend the law using the legislative process. Last month, that effort also failed. After the defeat, State Sen. Jerry Klein, the former grocery lobbyist, said he's now merely an "onlooker."
Klein no doubt looked eagerly on as the health department proposed rules once again to neuter the law. Those proposed rules were reviewed by North Dakota's State Health Council, which has oversight authority.
I'm happy to report the latest regulatory effort to destroy the food freedom law also failed.
Genny Dienstmann, a consumer member who chairs the council, confirmed to me by phone this week that the body had tabled the health department's proposed rules and has no current plans to take any further action on them, a big win for food freedom proponents.
Bravo.
Food freedom laws are only growing in popularity, as I detail in my recent book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable. Such laws are on the books in a growing number of states, including Wyoming, Utah, and Maine (though the latter differs slightly from others). Nonpartisan groups such as the National Conference of State Legislatures track these laws. ALEC's website features model food freedom legislative language.
The spread of food freedom laws has only been limited by opponents—chiefly advocates for stricter food-safety laws.
Take Food Safety News's Dan Flynn. Not one to traffic in hyperbole, Flynn nevertheless painted the North Dakota legislature's failure to amend the law as a sign that state lawmakers are willing to "risk some botulism once in a while."
He's right. But everyone who eats food—regulated or unregulated—also risks occasional botulism. "Everyone is at risk for foodborne botulism," North Dakota's health department cautions. Along these same lines, a search for the term "botulism" at the website of Marler Clark, the law firm that publishes Food Safety News, yields three search results, each of which involves botulism in foods sold in the regulated commercial marketplace. It appears all lawmakers—those that oppose food freedom laws and those that support them—"risk some botulism once in a while."
I asked Julie Wagendorf, director of the Division of Food and Lodging in the state health department—which, again, opposes the law—if there have been any cases of foodborne illness in North Dakota involving foods sold under the law since it took effect. Wagendorf responded, but she didn't answer that question.
A quick web search revealed that North Dakota has been dealing of late with an outbreak of foodborne illness. It's one of eight states where sushi-grade tuna has been found to harbor Salmonella. But you can't blame the state's food freedom law. Tuna is subject to FDA inspection and is sold commercially, rather than under the state's law.
That said, there's no evidence anyone has ever been sickened by foods sold under a food freedom law.
Given that, do we really need more rules?
Wagendorf insists we do.
"Clarity is needed for what is already stated in law as not authorized under this chapter," she told me by email.
The law's supporters disagree.
"We absolutely do not believe [state lawmakers] have legal authority to write rules for this particular section of [state law]," LeAnn Harner, a North Dakota farmer and key supporter of the state's food freedom law, wrote to me in an email this week. "We believe the current law as passed in 2017 is working. Our producers are doing their very best to produce safe, delicious food and drink products."
"The current law provided much-needed authority to small farm and home business owners to provide healthy, wholesome food directly to their local consumers who prefer such products, and the law should continue to support such efforts," says Alexia Kulwiec, executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund—a nonprofit advocacy group on whose board I serve—in an email to me this week.
I support state food freedom laws because they expand choice, not because no one has ever been sickened by food sold under these laws. Even if a person were to fall ill after eating, say, a homemade pie they bought at a farmer's market—and that will happen someday—I would continue to support such laws. Why?
It's simple. Foods are not legal because they don't ever sicken anyone. By which I mean, countless foods that are produced and inspected according to government regulations and sold in restaurants, groceries, and elsewhere have made people in this country sick. If we banned every last one of the regulated animal and vegetable products that have sickened or killed people over the years, there'd be nothing left to eat. Given the choice between choice and no choice—between food freedom and prohibitive rules—I'll take the former every time.
The post North Dakota's Food Freedom Law Dodges Another Bullet appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Big forfeiture reforms are coming to North Dakota, a state notorious for allowing police to seize and keep people's property without actually convicted them of a crime.
Last week the state's Republican governor, Doug Burgum, signed House Bill 1286, which seriously curtails law enforcement agencies' ability to arrest somebody, take his or her property, and attempt to keep what they've seized for themselves even when they cannot prove an underlying crime.
We're talking about the controversial (and arguably unconstitutional) practice of civil asset forfeiture. Promoted as a way to fight drugs by seizing the assets of wealthy kingpins, it has instead grown into a massively corrupt mechanism where police agencies pull people over or raid their houses on whatever pretext the cops can muster. If they find people carrying large amounts of cash, for example, they seize it and attempt to claim the money must be related to the drug trade so that they can keep the cash for themselves. It gets its name because it's a "civil" as opposed to a "criminal" proceeding—so the evidentiary threshold to successfully take somebody's property is lower than what's required to get a conviction, and so people have to pay for their own attorneys to fight the process.
North Dakota's rules were particularly bad for the citizens. It's one of only two states to get an F grade in the Institute for Justice's "Policing for Profit" state-by-state analysis. (Massachusetts is the other.) Prior to HB 1286, police only needed to meet the threshold of probable cause (the level of evidence needed to get a search warrant) to attempt to force forfeiture of property. Individual law enforcement agencies also got to keep 100 percent of what they took as long as they kept their forfeiture fund under $200,000—though it's not clear how North Dakotans would even know the status of those funds, since the state had no forfeiture tracking or reporting requirements. The Institute for Justice doesn't even have numbers for how much money North Dakota police have taken in from asset forfeiture, except in cases where police have partnered with the federal Department of Justice.
Thanks to the bill signed last week, police will now have to get a conviction before they can try to force most people to forfeit their assets. There are exemptions in cases where the defendant is dead, has been deported, has disappeared, or has abandoned the property. It also allows an exception if police and prosecutors can provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the assets they want to seize were directly connected to a crime. That's relevant because in asset forfeiture cases, the things to be seized are actually the subject of the legal case, not the people accused of crimes. North Dakota is requiring the same standard of proof to attempt to seize property as it does to convict people, even if they can't actually convict somebody of an underlying crime. If they do manage to convict somebody of the underlying crime, then the threshold of proof to force the forfeiting of property drops to "clear and convincing" evidence that it was connected to criminal activity. It's not as good as requiring a conviction for each attempt to seize cash and property, but it's certainly better than the status quo.
The bill also introduces tracking and reporting requirements so that citizens and journalists can keep track of where the money is going.
Also, in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines and fees even in asset forfeiture cases, the new law includes rules for courts to evaluate the value of the property seized in relation to the level of the offense and the defendant's role in the crimes. A car worth less than $2,000 can't be seized unless there's proof it has been altered to conceal contraband, and homes cannot be taken.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Rick Becker (R–Bismarck), was unhappy that it was watered down a little bit to get enough of a compromise to pass and turned against it. According to the Bismarck Tribune, he's considering a ballot initiative for 2020 that would tighten the rules for asset forfeiture even further. But whatever the gaps in the bill that just passed, it's certainly better than what North Dakota had before. Honestly, it couldn't have gotten much worse.
The post North Dakota Makes it Harder for Police to Take Property Without a Conviction appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) said Friday he has "concerns" about President Donald Trump's use of a national emergency declaration to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and believes the action to be "unnecessary," but isn't sure how he'll vote on a resolution to block it.
"I plan to vote on it. How I'm going to vote I haven't decided for sure yet," Cramer told Reason at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
"I have concerns about it as well," he added, referring to Trump's emergency declaration. "I frankly think it's unnecessary, but we'll see."
Last week, the House of Representatives voted 245-182 in favor of a resolution to block the national emergency. The resolution now heads to the Senate, where its passage is uncertain. Assuming all Democrats vote in favor of the resolution, four Republicans would need to defect in order to send the legislation to Trump's desk. Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Thom Tillis (N.C) have all indicated they plan to buck their party on this issue, according to CBS News, and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.) has also expressed concern. Even if the resolution passes the Senate, Trump has said he'll veto it, and it's exceedingly unlikely that two-thirds of both houses of Congress will vote to override that veto.
Cramer added that he believes Trump is acting within his legal authority.
"I think [Trump] may" have the power to declare an emergency to build the wall, he said. "I didn't used to think so, the more I've studied the more I think he may have that. I'm not sure he should have it, but I think he may have that authority."
"But we do need a wall," Cramer concluded.
Cramer previously said in a statement to the Associated Press last month that "the southern border is a national emergency now." In its continuously updated story on senators who have expressed public sentiments about Trump's national emergency declaration, The Washington Post has Cramer firmly in the "support" column.
The post GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer Says Trump's Emergency Declaration Is 'Unnecessary' appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>North Dakota's legislature passed a food freedom law in 2017 that deregulated many direct-to-consumer sales of food grown by farmers and prepared by home cooks. By any measure, the law has been a great success. Thanks to industrious entrepreneurs who share knowledge with each other, as well as host and attend workshops on topics like how to safely can and pickle fruits and vegetables, the residents of North Dakota can legally buy an array of locally grown, raised, and made food items right from their neighbors.
But as I warned last summer, the busybodies in Bismarck have been working on rules that would water down the law.
Last year state health department regulators proposed onerous rules that would have neutered the law. The Bismarck Tribune editorial board egged on the health department. But a backlash from Food Freedom Act supporters forced the health department to back down.
Now, some lawmakers in the same legislature that passed the law in 2017 are trying to kill it. Those efforts kicked into overdrive this month.
Under the pretense of "clarifying" the Food Freedom Act, S.B. 2269 would greatly limit the rights of food producers seeking to take advantage of the existing law. For example, S.B. 2269 would outlaw many homemade foods that are now legal to sell—including everything from lemonade to chicken tamales to canned beets. It would require foods that require refrigeration—from many pies to fruit salad—to be transported frozen and sold either dehydrated or frozen, which would make many foods inedible! It would also allow local health departments to inspect produce sold to restaurants. None of these onerous new regulatory burdens exist under the current law.
Why this bill?
"It hopes to create a sense of comfort amongst the health department—who had a lot of concerns—and the cottage food industry," said S.B. 2269 sponsor State Sen. Jerry Klein (R-Fessenden) this week. "And together, I believe I have a bill that is workable for all parties involved."
State Sen. Klein, according to his legislative bio, is a retired longtime grocery owner and former head of the state's grocers' association. How does the group he led feel about the Food Freedom Act?
"One key opponent of the [food freedom] law is the North Dakota Grocers Association, which said in a May newsletter that the group 'apposed (sic) this bill and will work with the ND Department of Health to fix or repeal this legislation,'" I observed in a column last year. "Competition is a beast."
And that is what this push to rein in the Food Freedom Act is all about: grocers' fear of competition.
But, as the grocers' association newsletter suggests, their friends at the North Dakota state health department also support efforts to weaken the Food Freedom Act.
"It doesn't necessarily take anything away from what the current law is," says Julie Wagendorf, a senior state health department official who supports S.B. 2269. "It just offers further explanation of defining what a cottage food product is."
While Wagendorf admits others might disagree with her assessment, it's difficult to see S.B. 2269 as having any substantive impact other than to take a whole lot of meaningful and important protections away from the North Dakota farmers, consumers, and others who benefit from the Food Freedom Act.
As a result, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit on whose board I serve, urged members in North Dakota to contact their lawmakers and support the Food Freedom Act.
Back when North Dakota was set to pass the Food Freedom Act, I said I was thrilled the state was joining a growing number of states that are doing so. I also explained why these laws are so popular: they expand choices for farmers, home-based entrepreneurs, and consumers; haven't led to any documented foodborne illnesses; and enjoy bipartisan support.
Nearly two years later, all of those facts are still very much in evidence. Naysaying North Dakota public health bureaucrats, the state grocery lobby, and lawmakers should take note.
The post North Dakota's Excellent Food Freedom Act Is Under Attack Yet Again appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Maine's new method of voting for Congressional candidates may well change the outcome of the race to represent the state's Second District.
Right now, with 78 percent of the vote cast, incumbent Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin has a tiny lead over Democrat Jared Golden, 46.2 percent to 45.7 percent. The problem for Poliquin, though, is that he doesn't have more than 50 percent of the vote, and with Maine's new ranked-choice voting system, that means he cannot yet be declared the winner.
There are two other independent candidates in the race, Tiffany Bond and William Hoar, and between the two of them they've got 8.1 percent of the vote. The independent votes are keeping either the Democrat or Republican from getting a majority win.
Under Maine's ranked-choice system, assuming the rest of the votes don't give either of the front-runners a majority victory, there's going to be an instant runoff. But voters will not have to return to the polls. When they voted Tuesday, they were asked to rank each of these candidates in order of preference (they didn't have to if they didn't want to; they could just choose one or rank just the ones they support). What will happen next is that the candidate with the fewest votes will be dropped from the race. Right now, that's Hoar. The ballots will then be recounted. For the 6,000 people who selected Hoar as their first choice, Maine will now count their second-ranked candidate as their choice for the House. And so a four-person race become a three-person race.
That still might not be enough to put either Poliquin or Golden above 50 percent. In fact, it seems very likely—Hoar is getting just 2.4 percent of the vote at the moment. So then, assuming Bond is still in third, she'll be dropped from the race and we'll go through another round of vote tallying. For anybody who voted for Bond, the person they ranked next will be their vote. Then with just two people left in the race, obviously one of them will have to hit the 50 percent threshold. In the end, even though Poliquin is ahead this first round, he could end up losing to Golden if more of Bond's and Hoar's voters ranked Golden higher.
This system has been put into play by Maine voters via ballot initiative partly as a way of encouraging voter participation and third-party candidate participation and to encourage Democratic and Republican Party candidates to consider more than just partisan turnout. Some cities have ranked-choice voting for local elections. Maine is the first to attempt it for wider races. The intent is to make it so that people don't feel as though they're "throwing their vote away" by choosing a third-party or independent candidate. They can still then select a more mainstream candidate as their second choice.
It's certainly not perfect though. For any voters who selected only Hoar and declined to rank the others, their ballots will be "exhausted," fundamentally meaning that it's the same as voting for a fringe candidate in a winner-takes-all race. But that would have happened anyway in the more typical voting system.
The big test will be if the switch to ranked-choice voting brings out more voters and if those voters are happier with the outcome, even if their first choice didn't win. It may be tough to determine if ranked-choice changed turnout this election because it appears midterm participation is up across the country this year compared to previous elections. Maine's secretary of state predicted record turnout for this year's midterms.
Yesterday's ranked-choice voting only applied to U.S. Senate and House races (independent progressive incumbent Sen. Angus King easily won majority vote against libertarian-leaning Republican Eric Brakey and Democrat Zak Ringelstein). Voters in Maine actually want ranked-choice voting to apply to state government races as well, but the state's constitution clearly states that only a plurality is needed to win state-level elections. It will have to be amended to fully implement the will of the voters. Currently gubernatorial front-runner Democrat Janet Mills is above the 50 percent threshold and if the numbers stand, she'd win without the ranked-choice system playing a role, even if it had applied to the governor's race.
As we watch Maine's experiment in ranked-choice voting play out, voters in Fargo, North Dakota, have decided to support a new and different way of handling local elections. By a vote of 64 percent, citizens in Fargo have decided to adopt approval voting for city elections.
For approval voting ballots, citizens are asked to mark each candidate they approve of, not just one. In a city council race with five candidates, for example, a voter could support just one of them, or several of them, or even all of them. When the ballots are tallied, the candidate with the most approval votes wins.
This is another mechanism that makes it possible to vote for third-party or independent candidates without the problem of throwing votes away. It's supported by The Center for Election Science, who put out a release last night cheering on the voters.
"Fargo voters have chosen a practical solution to the plights that come with our terrible choose-one voting method," Center Director Aaron Hamlin said. "They are armed against vote splitting and spoilers. And they've equipped themselves with a tool to elect strong candidates, encourage diverse ideas in campaigns, and permit support for favorite candidates without worry about viability."
Fargo will be the first city in the United States to introduce approval voting and it will affect the next race for city commissioner in 2020.
The post Ranked-Choice Voting in Maine May Affect House Race Results appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Today North Dakota voters, who two years ago approved medical marijuana by a 28-point margin, declined to take the additional step of allowing recreational use. Measure 3, the Marijuana Legalization and Automatic Expungement Initiative, was opposed by 60 percent of voters with 80 percent of precincts reporting.
Measure 3 would have gone further than any initiative enacted so far by removing marijuana from the state's list of prohibited substances and thereby legalizing "any nonviolent marijuana activity, except for the sale of marijuana to a person under the age of 21." Possession of marijuana by minors would be treated the same as possession of alcohol.
The North Dakota initiative was also unique in requiring "automatic expungement of the record of an individual who has a drug conviction for a controlled substance that has been legalized." So far California is the only state to approve a legalization initiative that addressed the lingering collateral consequences of a marijuana conviction, and even that measure put the onus on victims of prohibition to seek expungement or resentencing (although a law enacted last month will make the process easier).
The post Marijuana Legalization Measure Defeated in North Dakota appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>As voters in Maine prepare to rank their choices for Congress in November instead of voting for just one candidate, citizens in Fargo, North Dakota, will be deciding whether to change their local elections to allow voters to simply approve or oppose each local candidate for office.
It's called "approval voting," and residents of Fargo (population: 120,000) are being asked in a ballot initiative if they'd like to be the first municipality in the United States to try it.
Rather than simply voting for one candidate, voters in this system are asked to approve or oppose each person on the ballot. The votes are all tallied, and the candidate with the most approval votes is declared the winner. Much like Maine's ranked-choice instant runoff voting system, this approach doesn't lock voters into supporting a single candidate. It thus allows voters to support third-party and independent candidates if they like them, without having to "throw their vote away" or spoil the chances of a major-party candidate they also support.
Approval voting is a pet project of The Center for Election Science, and the group has been involved in the education campaign in Fargo running up to the election. Polls show that support for this change is high, twice that of those who oppose the change. But more than a third of those polled say that they are undecided, so the center has some work ahead.
"We're optimistic," says Aaron Hamlin, executive director and co-founder of the center. "We're continuing outreach and getting more endorsements for the measure."
The Center didn't just pick Fargo as some sort of random test, Hamlin explains. In 2015, for an election for a city commissioner, voters had six candidates to choose from. The winner of the election only received 22 percent of the vote—much, much less than a majority, and hardly a stamp of approval from the electorate. The commissioners then created a task force to explore voting reforms. The task force settled on the possibility that approval voting might be right for Fargo, but the commission then ignored its recommendations for a year. So supporters of the change started a group called Reform Fargo, collected enough signatures, and got it on the ballot as Measure 1.
The timing was right for the center to help with the push. In 2017, the 501(c)(3) non-profit's revenues were dramatically boosted by a $600,000 grant from the Open Philanthropy Project. (By comparison, the center's total revenue the previous year was around $46,000.) So it's in a position to spend money helping undecided voters see the benefits of approval voting.
Hamlin says supporters of third-party and independent candidates should appreciate the system. In the 2016 presidential election, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson got 3 percent of the vote and Green Party candidate Jill Stein got one percent. In a study examining the race as if it were an approval vote ballot, Johnson's support jumped to 21 percent and Stein's support rose to 12 percent, Hamlin says.
That's certainly not enough for either of them to win, but it's an example of how our method of voting games the system so heavily in favor of the two dominant parties. If Johnson had been treated all along as a candidate with support of 21 percent of the population, how would that have affected the amount of media coverage he received, not to mention participation in debates? Would the Democratic and Republican parties be so dismissive about his positions?
If Fargo's voters approve Measure 1, approval voting will be implemented for the next race for mayor and city commissioners. Hamlin says the education campaign would continue to make sure voters know how the new system works, and he hopes it will encourage more people to run for office who would normally decline because they feel they have no chance of winning. He also hopes that people will be happier with their votes if they could support secondary candidates to send the frontrunners a message about where their priorities lie. Hamlin says other nearby communities in North Dakota are watching Fargo and may follow in its footsteps.
"There are very few instances where voters and citizens can't be ignored, and that's when they are voting," Hamlin says. "Right now we have a horrible tool for how we vote. This is upgrading that tool."
Edited to correct that Fargo is, in fact, in North Dakota.
The post Fargo Considers Whether to Turn Local Elections into a Voting System of Likes (and Dislikes) appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Reports surfaced this week North Dakota's great Food Freedom Act, which became law last year, could be watered down by overbearing state regulators. Adding to the concern, a Bismarck paper recently endorsed the basic outline of such rules.
North Dakota's food freedom law allows direct sales of many foods by a producer in the state to consumers in the state. That includes direct sales of virtually any foods—from apple slices to homemade pickles to homemade zucchini bread—except meat or raw dairy products.
North Dakota's law is the nation's third bi-partisan food freedom law—after Wyoming's and Colorado's—as I detailed in a column last year. Maine's food sovereignty law contains many of the same elements, but differs because it allows local municipalities to opt into the law.
The North Dakota's law has many success stories, such as this one, but it continues to face threats made by the state's overbearing health department and other opponents.
Just this past February, the state health department proposed rules that supporters of the law argued "would block much of what they hoped to accomplish" by passing the law in the first place.
AgWeek reports that the proposed rules would have "prohibit[ed] sales of dehydrated items without checks on water levels, refrigerated goods that aren't kept frozen before selling, and home canned goods that don't use approved recipes or include nonacidic canned foods, such as green beans. The rules also laid out requirements for labeling."
Then, in March, the Institute for Justice (IJ) sent a letter to North Dakota lawmakers, regulators, and Food Freedom Act supporters stating that the rules the agency had proposed to adopt went against the letter and spirit of the law.
The law is clear that regulations of the sort proposed by the health department are not permissible. The law states that "any cottage food product or food sold under this section is not certified, labeled, licensed, packaged, regulated, or inspected." It also orders that "a state agency or political subdivision may not require licensure, permitting, certification, inspection, packaging, or labeling that pertains to the preparation or sale of cottage food products under this section." This language, along with the law's requirement that producers inform consumers that the foods they sell are "not licensed, regulated, or inspected," makes it clear the state legislature intended that foods sold under the Food Freedom Act not be subject to regulations.
In the wake of IJ's letter, which the state took as an intent by IJ to sue should the health department should it adopt the rules, state lawmakers met with the health department, which agreed to scrap its plans.
That was good news. But after taking one step back, the health department now appears emboldened to take two lousy steps forward. Their angle of attack is language in the law pertaining to "baked goods, jams, jellies, and other food and drink products produced by a cottage food operator." The health department may attempt to define—and, hence, limit—the meaning of "other food and drink products."
The state's second-largest paper, the Bismarck Tribune, recently came out in support of adopting rules because "it's possible problems could arise with cottage foods."
Earlier this week, I spoke with LeAnn Harner, who owns Harner Farm in Mandan, North Dakota, and is a key supporter of the state's food freedom law.
"There is no part of this section of North Dakota state law that allows the health department to draft rules," Harner tells me. "They want to eliminate any refrigerated foods, any cut vegetables—tossed salad, baked beans, potato salad, or any of those kinds of foods."
Pete Kennedy, an attorney with the Weston A. Price Foundation, sees things similarly.
"Issuing regulations would likely keep some quality cottage food producers out of the market because of the cost of compliance in an area where there have been no food safety problems," Kennedy tells me.
One key opponent of the law is the North Dakota Grocers Association, which said in a May newsletter that the group "apposed (sic) this bill and will work with the ND Department of Health to fix or repeal this legislation." Competition is a beast.
As I noted in my column on the North Dakota law last year, food freedom laws have been successful and continue to spread because they expand choices for farmers, home-based entrepreneurs, and consumers; haven't led to negative food-safety outcomes; and enjoy bipartisan support.
But their opponents—namely state health departments and competing food sellers, such as the North Dakota grocers—continue to fight these laws. That's because these laws are a boon wherever they've been passed. They're intended to eliminate red tape, not to create new barriers. We need more such laws and not mindless restrictions that water down the considerable benefits of food freedom legislation.
The post North Dakota Regulators Are Going After the State's Food Freedom Law—Again appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Stutsman County, North Dakota, sheriff's deputy Matt Thom testified that he stopped a vehicle because it was going 2 mph under the speed limit, it was from out of state, he could see no luggage, and the driver was sitting too rigidly and did not look at him when he drove alongside the vehicle. A judge ruled none of that added up to a good reason to stop the vehicle. He ruled that Thom violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the two men in the vehicle and said that 500 pounds of marijuana seized in the stop cannot be used as evidence.
The post Brickbat: Suspicious Minds appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>There are a dozen states that don't allow alcohol to be sold on Sunday. In 17 states, it's illegal to buy a car on Sunday.
Those are probably the best-known examples of so-called "Blue Laws," a legacy of the puritanical spirit and prohibitionist instincts that still color lawmaking in America today. They don't make much sense once you try to apply a little logic, but they are usually not much more than minor inconveniences.
Not so in North Dakota, where state lawmakers have taken blue laws to incomparable lengths.
It is illegal there, for example, to buy clothing or shoes before noon on Sundays. It's also illegal to buy pots or pans, silverware, and any other sort of kitchenware. It's illegal to buy curtains, draperies, blinds, and window shades. It's illegal to buy beds, mattresses, linens, sheets, and blankets. It's illegal to buy furniture, appliances, and luggage. It's illegal to buy mirrors, lawnmowers, lamps, and air conditioners.
It's technically legal on Sunday mornings to buy clothing for infants or for "transient travelers under emergency conditions," just like it's technically legal to buy hardware for "emergency plumbing, heating, cooling, or electrical repair," but good luck finding a store that's open before noon to sell it to you. Since almost anything that you'd buy in big box store, a mid-sized home goods store, or a small town hardware store is off-limits, most of them are closed until noon.
And if you want to count the minutes until they open, I hope you bought a clock or watch on Saturday. Buying any sort of timepiece is illegal too.
"North Dakota's current prohibition on Sunday morning shopping is arcane, unfair, and unenforceable," says Branden Medenwald, chairman of North Dakota Open on Sundays, a nonprofit working to end this state-enforced nonsense.
Medenwald is pushing to have a repeal of the state's blue laws on the ballot in 2018. His organization is in the process of collecting the 20,000 signatures necessary to make that happen.
"North Dakota doesn't dictate to farmers when to farm, hospitals when to practice medicine, or restaurants when to feed people. We are simply asking that all businesses, not just a chosen few, be allowed that same freedom," he wrote this week in an op-ed published at the Say Anything Blog, a website covering North Dakota politics.
Earlier this year, state lawmakers considered a bill that would have repealed all the state's blue laws except the all-day ban on car sales and the all-morning ban on alcohol sales. It failed to pass, but not before one state senator used the opportunity to condemn "selfish consumerism" while another argued it was unnecessary to repeal the blue laws because North Dakotans should "use that time to go to worship."
Aside from dealing a blow to the creepy notion that state lawmakers can tell people how to use their time, getting rid of the blue laws might have an actual, tangible benefit. Groups in favor of repeal—like the Greater North Dakota Association, the state's chamber of commerce—say getting rid of the bans would create jobs and benefit low-income workers.
North Dakota's blue laws also have become a vehicle for crony capitalism. Since 1967, the state has allowed some businesses to open early on Sundays, though it wasn't until 1991 that general retailers were allowed to open on Sunday afternoons. (Previously they were required to be closed all day.) There are now 39 exemptions written into the state law, covering everything from pharmacies to newsstands, and from restaurants to theaters.
By constantly expanding the exemptions, lawmakers have only added to the insanity.
For example, a 2015 amendment allowed for the sale of alcohol to begin at 11 a.m. on Sundays, specifically so bars could cater to football fans and brunch-goers. That means it's illegal to purchase a pair of shoes or a set of kitchen utensils on Sunday morning in North Dakota, but you can buy a round for all your friends at the local dive.
If that doesn't upend the puritanical logic behind blue laws, I don't know what does.
Meanwhile, if you want to buy a television set or a radio to watch or listen to the game, you are out of luck. The same is true if you want to buy an actual football: Sporting goods "other than those sold or rented on the premises where sports and recreational activities are conducted" are similarly banned from being sold.
"Repealing the Blue Law does not force businesses to open on Sunday mornings," Mendenwald points out on his group's Facebook page. "Repealing this law also does not force consumers to patronize these businesses on Sunday morning," he adds. What repeal does, he explains, is allow all "the freedom to choose how to spend their own time."
The post Voters Could Have a Chance to Repeal North Dakota's Insane Blue Laws appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>North Dakota is set to add to the small-but-growing list of states that boast "food freedom" legislation. The state legislature sent a food freedom bill to Gov. Doug Burgum (R) this week. He's indicated he'll sign the bill, which will open up direct-to-consumer sales of virtually any foods (save meat or raw dairy products) in the state.
North Dakota's law is fashioned after a groundbreaking Wyoming law, the Food Freedom Act. The Wyoming law, adopted in 2015, deregulated many direct-to-consumer food sales in the state.
Coincidentally, Wyoming lawmakers expanded the scope of that wildly successful law just last month. Among other things, Wyoming's expanded food-freedom law allows the sale of poultry and rabbit meat without mandatory inspections; permits sales of home-processed foods; and allows sales to occur in persons' homes.
I'm thrilled this important legislation has struck a chord and is spreading. Three key reasons I believe food-freedom legislation continues to spread are that it expands choices for farmers, home-based entrepreneurs, and consumers; it hasn't led to negative food-safety outcomes; and it enjoys bipartisan support.
On that latter point, a key feature of the 2015 Wyoming bill is that it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. And last month's updates to the Food Freedom Act were co-sponsored by eight Republicans and two (of the state's nine) Democratic representatives.
Colorado's Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, signed a food-freedom bill into law last year. That law, while more limited in scope than Wyoming's groundbreaking law, expanded permissible cottage food offerings in the state and allowed small farmers to slaughter and sell their own chickens directly to consumers.
Though food-freedom bills have secured strong bipartisan support, they've also faced their share of stiff opposition from unwavering supporters of rigid food-safety regulations. For example, the Wyoming Tribune Eagle editorial board warned in 2015 that the Food Freedom Act would "put Wyomingites' health—and even their lives—at risk." National advocates for stricter food-safety regulations, including Marion Nestle and Bill Marler, have also been critical of food-freedom legislation.
While these laws are in their infancy, it's noteworthy that the predictions of many of these opponents of food freedom that deregulation of direct-to-consumer food sales would result in an uptick in foodborne illness have not been realized. Not at all.
Wyoming State Rep. Tyler Lindholm (R) co-sponsored both the original Food Freedom Act in his state and the recent update to the law.
"Wyoming has seen the exact opposite that these do gooders predict," Lindholm told me in February. "Wyoming[']s local food options have exploded and we still have had 0 foodborne illness outbreaks due to this Act passing into law." That mirrors what he told me in 2016.
"Currently Wyoming has experienced none of the deaths that we were all warned would happen, and for that matter none of the illness[es] that were prophesized to take place upon passage of the bill," he said.
Even as food-safety issues haven't materialized, passing food-freedom laws is still a tough row to hoe.
In February, I wrote about a Montana bill, the Local Food Choice Act, which would have legalized the sale of homemade foods and "encourage[d] the expansion of agricultural sales by ranches, farms, and home-based producers" in the state. That bill stalled in committee last month.
"Legislators introduced Food Freedom bills in seven states during the 2017 legislative session—an indication that people are growing increasingly tired of the government denying their food choices by trying to protect them from themselves," said Pete Kennedy of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (where I serve as a board member) in an email to me this week.
The fact only North Dakota's bill passed out of the state legislature is also an indication that these laws are spreading more slowly than farmers and consumers would prefer.
Where will food freedom legislation pop up next? Certainly, efforts will continue in states where the legislation fell short. It's also sure to spread to new states. I'm involved in early efforts in my new home, Washington State, to push for food freedom legislation here.
"Food freedom laws benefit the local economy, the bottom line of sustainable family farms, food security and the public health," Pete Kennedy tells me. "Their popularity will only increase as the movement continues back to a time when unregulated farmer-to-consumer direct commerce in this country was the norm."
The post Food Freedom Movement Spreads to North Dakota appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>
Two states in the upper Midwest this week considered making changes to state laws allowing police to seize property from innocent people suspected of committing a crime. Only one succeeded in protecting property rights.
State lawmakers in North Dakota killed a proposal that would have required law enforcement to get a criminal conviction before seizing property though civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Meanwhile, in neighboring Minnesota, a state that already requires a criminal conviction before asset forfeiture can occur, state lawmakers passed and Gov. Mark Dayton signed a bill to strengthen that 2014 law by making it harder for cops to seize jointly owned property after a DUI conviction.
Both bills demonstrate the ongoing fight between law enforcement special interests, which argue civil forfeiture is necessary to stop criminal behavior (and often benefit from the process by using seized assets to pad their department budgets), and reformers who see forfeiture as a fundamentally un-just process that victimizes innocent property owners.
In North Dakota, it seems the police have the upper hand. According to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm, North Dakota has some of the worst asset forfeiture laws in the country, and that won't be changing after the state Senate unanimously voted down a bill to require a criminal conviction before prosecutors could seize property or money involved in the crime. The bill had passed the state House in February with a 50-42 vote despite opposition from law enforcement groups.
In addition to requiring a conviction before state and local police could engage in forfeiture, the bill would have prohibited police departments from passing forfeiture cases off to federal law enforcement authorities, a practice known as "equitable sharing" that is sometimes used to get around state-level restrictions on forfeiture.
Unlike North Dakota, Minnesota has some of the nation's best asset forfeiture laws. A 2014 law made Minnesota the second state in the nation to require a criminal conviction before forfeiture could occur, and Gov. Mark Dayton added to those protections for property owners this week by signing a bill to prohibit the forfeiture of jointly owned property, like cars, in the aftermath of a DUI arrest, Minnesota Public Radio reports.
The bill was prompted, in part, by a lawsuit challenging the seizure of a car by police in Isanti County, Minnesota. The car was jointly owned by a husband and wife, but was seized by police following the wife's 2006 arrest for DUI. The husband, David Laase, argued that he was innocent and that he should not lose possession of the car because of his wife's crime. The state Supreme Court ultimately upheld the forfeiture.
"This reform will open the courthouse doors to wives, parents and other innocent owner claimants and overturn a troubling ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court," said Lee McGrath, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice's Minnesota office, in a statement.
With the new reforms signed into law this week, Minnesota continues to be a national leader in restricting the abusive practice of asset forfeiture. On the western banks of the Red River, though, property rights remain significantly less secure.
The post North Dakota Senate Says It's Fine for Police to Seize Property Without a Conviction appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>There may be a looming environmental disaster in North Dakota, but the problem isn't the Dakota Access Pipeline. It's the people protesting it.
After the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a statement demanding that the Oceti Sakowin Camp be closed by February 22 over concerns of flooding, many protesters packed up and departed. Left behind was their trash and waste, NBC News reported.
Oceti Sakowin Camp sits in a lowland area where the Missouri and Cannonball Rivers converge, making it a prime location for flooding. The record winter snowfall heightens the chances as spring arrives. And with flooding comes the risk of water contamination as trash and human waste could be swept into the nearby rivers.
Federal and local officials estimate there's enough trash and human waste to fill 2,500 pick-up trucks, according to ABC News. Efforts to clean up the area are underway, but time is of the essence as the surrounding snow begins to melt.
"We're really fighting the clock," Morton County Emergency Manager Tom Doering told ABC News on Wednesday. "There's more garbage down there than anybody anticipated."
"There's more than anticipated, and it's under a lot of snow," Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault said, per CBS Minnesota. "I wouldn't say it's going to get done in days; it's going to take weeks."
Standing Rock Environmental Protection Agency and Dakota Sanitation are currently working to remove the mountains of trash that have accumulated. Everything from tents to cars have been left behind after protesters received the evacuation notices. Around 300 to 400 people are reportedly still at the campsite, with some aiding in the clean-up effort. Despite the help, the job is only half-finished, according to the Washington Times.
One of the main arguments against constructing the Dakota Access Pipeline in the first place was that it was an environmental risk, since a rupture in the line could contaminate potable water in the area. Now it seems the protesters themselves may end up polluting the rivers, if their debris can't be cleared out in time.
The post Protester Trash and Debris Threaten Water Contamination at Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Well that was fast. According to Reuters, the Army Corps of Engineers has filed court papers stating that the agency plans to grant an easement that will enable Energy Transfer Partners to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline by drilling under the Lake Oahe reservoir. This action appears to be pursuant to an executive order signed late last month by President Trump instructing the Corps to "review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law" such an easement.
Environmental activists believe that preventing the pipeline's completion will help forestall man-made global warming by keeping oil in the ground. In addition, the local Sioux opposed it due to fears that it could leak and contaminate their drinking and irrigation water supplies. Nevertheless, the Corps completed and issued an environmental assessment (EA) with a "Finding of No Significant Impact" with regard to the construction of the pipeline beneath Lake Oahe. This displeased folks in the Obama administration who pressured the Corps into finding a way to stall the project. In December, acting Assistant Director of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy obliged by issuing a memorandum that voided the Corps' assessment. In addition, Darcy ordered that full-blown environmental impact assessment be conducted, a process that could take as long as two years more to complete.
That was then; this is now. Consider the fact that the regulators' environmental assessment last July had concluded that the granting the easement under Lake Oahe was appropriate. Nevertheless, at the direction of Obama administration officials, the Corps was ordered to revisit and revise its decisions which it duly did. Now the Trump administration has ordered to Corps to reconsider its reconsideration and revise its conclusions again which it is evidently doing.
One way to look at what is happening is that a highly politicized regulatory decision by the Obama administration is being corrected by the Trump administration. Those of us concerned about the rule of law on which activists, oilmen, and all other citizens hope to rely, might see the situation differently: The pipeline was stalled at the whim of one president and is evidently being green-lighted now at the whim of another. Whimsical regulation is bad for everybody.
The post Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Will Be Granted By Army appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>President Trump signed an executive order last week directing the Army Corps of Engineers to "review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law" the easements across federal lands necessary to complete the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). At issue is permission to finish construction of the last segment of the pipeline underneath Lake Oahe in North Dakota. Last July, the Corp completed and issued an environmental assessment (EA) with a "Finding of No Significant Impact" with regard to the construction of the pipeline beneath Lake Oahe.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe objected to the construction due to expressed concerns that an upsteam pipeline leak could contaminate their drinking and irrigation water supplies. However, the Corps' environmental assessment specifically noted, "The tribes argue the District did not adequately consult on the DAPL pipeline alignment. The EA establishes that the District made a good faith effort to consult with the tribes and that it considered all tribal comments." The Corps' assessment concluded that measures adopted to mitigate any spills were adequate to protect Lake Oahe. Environmental activists opposed the construction of the pipeline in the hope that stopping it would prevent the production and burning of fossil fuels that contribute to man-made global warming.
As the fall wore on, thousands of protesters set up camp near Lake Oahe to block construction of the pipeline and to put pressure on the Obama administration to overrule the Corp's environmental assessment. Without speculating on the behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Obama administration officials, it is the case that acting Assistant Director of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy issued in December a memorandum that voided the Corps' assessment. In her memo Darcy did observe:
I want to be clear that this decision does not alter the Army's position that the Corps' prior reviews and actions have comported with legal requirements. Rather, my decision acknowledges and addresses that a more robust analysis can be done and should be done, under these circumstances (emphasis hers), before an easement is granted to the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross the Missouri River on Corps land.
Under the circumstances, Darcy then declined to approve an easement that would enable the completion of the pipeline. In addition, Darcy ordered the Corps to undertake a full-blown environmental impact statement, a process that could take as long as two years more to complete.
Now just two months later, North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven has reportedly been told that Army Secretary Robert Speer will soon order the Corps to issue the easement necessary to complete the pipeline. Whether this apparent impending approval is "permitted by law" will, of course, be contested by Sioux and environmental activists in court.
Ultimately, this episode is an example of how arbitrary politically motivated bureaucratic decisions are replacing the rule of law. This should worry every American.
The post Trump, Obama, and the Approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The apparent decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to not grant an easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe was announced via a tweet from the Standing Rock protesters in North Dakota. Evidently, the Corps has decided to conduct an additional environmental assessment seeking alternative routes. From the New York Times:
In a statement on Sunday, the Army's Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, said that the decision was based on a need to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.
"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Ms. Darcy said. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."
The consideration of alternative routes "would be best accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement with full public input and analysis," Ms Darcy said in a statement.
This decision may address the expressed concerns of the Standind Rock Sioux Tribe about protecting drinking water sources and sacred sites, but it does not mean that the pipeline will not get built. It is worth noting that the land through which the pipeline was routed is privately owned and the easements were reportedly acquired without the exercise of eminent domain.
Quick update: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons just released this statement in response to the Army Corps decision:
"This decision defies logic, science and sound policy-decision making, and the consequences can be measured in lost work for manufacturers and those in the manufacturing supply chain.
"If a project that has involved all relevant stakeholders and followed both the letter and spirit of the law at every step of this approval process can be derailed, what signal does that send to others considering building new energy infrastructure in this country?
"We can only hope that President-elect Trump will stand by his promises to invest aggressively in new infrastructure in America and start by overturning this misguided decision and allow the completion of the pipeline."
Sadly, neither current President Obama or President elect Trump seem overly concerned about the rule of law.
The post Army Corps of Engineers Halts Work on Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>As the protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline stretch into their seventh month, reports of brutal police attacks from the scene continue.
Most of the available video from the protests is shot and transmitted by people on the scene. But in the past week or so police behavior has been garnering major newspaper attention, and most of the information below are from such sources. But a collection of livestreams from Sunday night's violence can be found here.
• 21-year-old protester Sophia Wilansky had her arm seriously injured Sunday by what her family and other protesters insist was a concussion grenade tossed at them by law officers.
Disturbingly graphic photos of the damage to Wilansky's arm can be found here, not for faint of heart.
Her father Wayne Wilansky told The Guardian that:
"The best-case scenario is no pain and 10-20% functionality,"…He said…the arteries, median nerve, muscle and bone in her left arm had been "blown away".
Sophia will require additional surgery in the next few days and her arm may still have to be amputated, he added. "She's devastated. She looks at her arm and she cries," he said.
Law officers denied to the Los Angeles Times that they used tossed any such thing at protesters.The Standing Rock Medic & Healer Council, reports The Guardian:
refuted law enforcement's claims in a statement, citing eye-witness accounts of seeing police throw concussion grenades, "the lack of charring of flesh at the wound site" and "grenade pieces that have been removed from her arm in surgery and will be saved for legal proceedings".
USA Today's report on the injury to Wilansky.
• Law enforcement use of hoses to spray water on protesters in sub-zero [in centigrade, but in fahrenheit merely "below freezing"] temperature caused, activists insisted, 200 cases of hypothermia. The Los Angeles Times reports law enforcement's side:
Footage of the protest from the independent news outlet Unicorn Riot showed officials specifically targeting protesters with the water cannon, though the water pressure was not turned up high enough to knock anyone down…
Water cannons have not often been used for crowd control in the U.S. in recent years.
"It's a fairly nonstandard application," said Richard Odenthal, a former L.A. Sheriff's Department captain…Odenthal said the L.A. Sheriff's Department had once discussed whether to adopt a water cannon for crowd control, but decided against it, citing famous footage from the 1960s of Southern police officials turning high-powered fire hoses on black protesters. "We decided that wasn't an image we wanted to portray," Odenthal said.
Herr, the Morton County sheriff's spokeswoman, said that a fire department had brought a water hose to help put out a brush fire and that officials at the scene decided to repurpose it against the protesters, citing "aggression from the agitators in the camp [who] continued to raise their level of resistance against law enforcement."
• Details from The Intercept via reports from medic's on the scene:
"What it was like was people walking through the dark of a winter North Dakota night, some of them so cold, and sprayed with water for so long, that their clothes were frozen to their body and crunching as they walked. So you could hear this crunching sound and this pop-pop-pop, and people yelling [to the police], 'We'll pray for you! We love you!'" [Linda] Black Elk [a member of the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council] said, describing the scene as police sprayed protesters with water and fired tear gas and rubber bullets during the more than six-hour standoff.
"All of a sudden there were these bright, blinding spotlights, so you could see each other, but you couldn't see [the police]," she said. "Every once in awhile you could hear someone scream who had been hit by a rubber bullet."
In the midst of the clash, the Medic and Healer Council, which was set up to provide health support to those fighting the pipeline, released a statement pleading with police to halt the use of water cannons. "As medical professionals, we are concerned for the real risk of loss of life due to severe hypothermia under these conditions," the statement said.
The Intercept does a better job contextualizing the actual physical circumstances than most major newspaper reports:
The standoff [Sunday night] began after pipeline opponents attempted to use a semitruck to remove two charred military vehicles from a bridge. The vehicles were serving as a blockade between the large encampment known as Oceti Sakowin, which has served as a base for blocking the pipeline, and construction sites accessible farther down the highway. Beyond the burned-out vehicles stood cement road barriers topped with razor wire, behind which police and other security officials have been standing guard since the end of October. Their presence means a detour for those traveling between the Standing Rock Sioux reservation and the city of Bismarck, including emergency medical services
The police defended their use of what they called not a "water cannon" but a mere "fire hose" because protesters had been "very aggressive" and allegedly were throwing projectiles at them. (See picture above.)
The Guardian reports that the police defended the initial use of the fire hose as needed to put out fires started by the protesters. Jade Begay, a spokeswoman for the Indigenous Environmental Network, characterized those fires to the paper as "two bonfires to keep people warm and make soup and tea. Other fires were sparked by law enforcement weapons, she added."
The New York Times reported yesterday on 16 more arrests made since Sunday night's water attack and notes both police and protesters are leveling charges of mutual violence against each other, with police saying rocks and logs were being thrown at them.
• Police last month arrested a protester named Red Fawn Fallis after claiming she shot at officers, while in a scrum with them as they tried to detain her.
The Guardian reports how her friends doubt the story, and how the police are in no hurry to present any evidence for it:
local police had arrested Fallis and charged her with attempted murder, saying that she had pulled out a .38 revolver and fired three gunshots at police during another mass arrest incident.
The Morton County sheriff's office has held up the charges as an example of what it says is the violent and illegal behavior of Native American protesters….
But Fallis's close friends and supporters [say] the firearm accusations were inconceivable….the sheriff's office alleged that Fallis resisted arrest and fired three shots, causing the ground to "explode". No one was injured….
Can the police corroborate their story?
Asked for copies of any footage of the arrest or photos of the firearm, a spokeswoman for the sheriff said: "That is all evidence that will not be released until the investigation is complete."
Friends insist she herself advised others on the scene to stay "peaceful and prayerful" and they cannot believe she would have violated native elder insistence that no one involved be armed.
More of the police's account of what happened at Heavy, including that Fallis "told Probation and Parole that 'they are lucky she didn't shoot 'all you f—kers.' She then requested an attorney, the complaint says."
• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is petitioning "the DOJ to investigate possible constitutional violations and suspend police use of federally supplied military equipment." on the scene.
Among the practices the ACLU reports as troublesome:
In below-freezing weather last night, law enforcement deployed tear gas, water cannons, percussion grenades, and rubber bullets against hundreds protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.
News reports confirm more than 300 people have been injured…..nonviolent protesters are being confronted by police in riot gear with armored military vehicles, automatic rifles, sonic weapons, concussion grenades, attack dogs, pepper spray, and beanbag bullets…
North Dakota has received $3 million worth of military equipment from the federal government through the Defense Department's 1033 program.
The post Brutal Police Actions, Tactics Reported from Dakota Pipeline Protest appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Today voters in North Dakota approved a ballot initiative that allows medical use of marijuana, raising the number of states with such laws to 27. With more than 60 percent of precincts reporting, Initiated Statutory Measure 5 was favored by 64 percent of voters.
Measure 5 allows the use of marijuana for treatment of specified "debilitating medical conditions" and others added by the North Dakota Department of Health. It authorizes production and distribution of medical marijuana by state-registered, nonprofit "compassion centers." The initiative allows patients located more than 40 miles from the nearest licensed supplier to grow up to eight plants in "an enclosed, locked facility."
Before today's vote, the most recent relevant polling in North Dakota came from 2014, when a survey of likely voters found that 47 percent thought marijuana should be legal for medical use.
"Measure 5 is going to improve the quality of life for many North Dakotans," said Anita Morgan of North Dakota Compassionate Care, the committee that promoted the initiative. "There is no longer any doubt that cannabis is effective in the treatment of several debilitating medical conditions. It can alleviate the nausea that cancer patients experience as they undergo chemotherapy. It can dramatically reduce or even eliminate seizures in patients suffering from epilepsy. And it can serve as a much safer alternative to prescription drugs that are often prescribed to patients who are dealing with severe and chronic pain."
The post North Dakota Becomes the 27th Medical Marijuana State appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Police in Cannonball, North Dakota descended on a camp protesters put up on property recently purchased by the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline which is supposed to run from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to an oil tank farm in Illinois, making 141 arrests according to the local sheriff.
More than 300 riot cops were involved in the operation, according to an account from protesters organizing as the Camp of Sacred Stones, which reported at least eight ATVs, five armored vehicles, and two helicopters as part of the operation to take down the 1851 Treaty Camp, named after a treaty protesters and tribal leaders argue had made the land unceded Dakota territory that was part of the Standing Rock Reservation. It was reportedly the first time protesters had placed themselves directly in the path of the proposed pipeline.
In a statement, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier claimed protesters had "escalated unlawful behavior this weekend by setting up illegal roadblocks, trespassing onto private property and establishing an encampment," which had "forced law enforcement to respond at this time," as NBC News reports. According to the AP, protesters used burned vehicles and sheets of plywood to block a state highway as well as a local bridge.
One woman at the protest fired three shots, "narrowly missing a sheriff's deputy," a spokesperson for the North Dakota State Emergency Services said. Authorities say law enforcement officials did not fire at anybody, while protesters say pepper spray and percussion grenades were used against them as well as shotguns with less lethal ammunition and a sound cannon, and that at least one protester was tased and another hit in the face by a rubber bullet. No serious injuries were reported, according to the AP.
The governor of North Dakota issued an emergency declaration for Morton County, where mass protests over the pipeline have coalesced, activating the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, the product of a Clinton era law creating interstate agreements for emergencies, and bringing law enforcement to Morton County from at least five other states.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has gone to court to challenge the Army Corps of Engineers' decision to grant permits related to the pipeline, according to the AP, which reports that a judge last month declined to order construction be suspended while a number of federal agencies have stepped in to order construction be suspended around Lake Oahe on the Missouri River. Construction has continued on privately-owned land.
The post 140+ Arrested, 300+ Officers Reportedly Involved in Crack Down on Dakota Pipeline Protest Camp appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The University of North Dakota (UND) is preparing its students for the job market with a course on how to build their own drone businesses.
The new class walks students through the details of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry, from regulation and current applications to its future potential, all with the aim of creating a whole new crop of drone entrepreneurs.
This is done in three phases. In phase one, the students earn their piloting certificates and study up on current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drone regulations. Phase two goes over the state of the industry today, so that students can get an idea of what commercial end users want from pilotless aircraft companies.
In the third and final stage, students are tasked with crafting their own business ideas, which they will then pitch to a panel of actual venture capitalists in a Shark Tank–like setting.
Matt Dunlevy—who designed and teaches the course along with his co-instructor, Rick Thomas—tells Reason that it's proving quite popular. Though it only opened up two weeks before classes began this fall, Dunlevy had no problem filling seats. Everyone from engineers and business students to arts and music majors wanted in.
And the interest turns out to be driven by more than just idle curiosity about unmanned aircraft. Some students are taking the course so seriously that they aren't even sharing their business ideas with their professors, preferring to keep that information private until they're ready to pitch to investors.
That his students are so keen on engaging in the commercial practicalities of drones excites Dunlevy, who sees universities as crucial to growing the young industry. And indeed, the world of UAVs does seem poised for explosive growth. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, predicts the drone industry will add 100,000 new jobs and $82 billion to the U.S. economy by 2025.
Dunlevy actually thinks that's an underestimation—and that those 100,000 jobs could be here as soon as the next five to seven years.
It's hard to fault him for his optimism, considering the increasingly inventive applications for unmanned aircraft already being proposed. From providing cell service after a natural disaster to delivering pizza through the air and to your door, drones are becoming a bigger and more important presence in the economy and our lives.
With UND's first class of students set to make their drone business pitches to investors in December, even more and cooler ideas are likely on their way.
The post University of North Dakota Offers Class on Starting Your Own Drone Business appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Does a journalist's point of view make them complicit in any potential crimes they report on?
North Dakota State's Attorney Ladd Erickson appears to think so, which is why after dropping criminal trespassing charges against Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, he has upgraded charges against the venerable leftist journalist to the far more serious accusation that Goodman participated in a riot when covering protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline this past September.
The protests against the pipeline took a violent turn when private security guards pepper-sprayed demonstrators and unleashed dogs on them. Goodman—who makes no secret that she's in full support of the protests—covered these incidents for Democracy Now. In Erickson's view, that forfeits her First Amendment rights as a journalist. Per the Bismarck Tribune:
"She's a protester, basically. Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions," said Erickson, adding that her coverage of the Sept. 3 protest did not mention that people trespassed during the incident or the alleged assaults on guards.
"Is everybody that's putting out a YouTube video from down there a journalist down there, too?" he asked.
If this is all Erickson is going on for charging Goodman, he is demonstrating a frightening misunderstanding of the concept of a free press. One does not require special accreditation from the government, nor a a demonstrated "objectivity," to report on news as it happens.
Goodman's case is not the only Dakota pipeline-related arrest making news. Documentary producer Deia Schlosberg—who works with Gasland director Josh Fox—is reportedly facing felony charges for "conspiracy to commit theft of property and services" while she was covering what protesters themselves described as "sabotage" of the pipeline's emergency valves in a coordinated action earlier this month. These protesters freely admit they cut down fences, broke into valve stations, and manually shut down emergency valves. As Vice noted last year, this is a surprisingly easy but potentially dangerous thing to do (especially if caring for the environment is a concern):
The momentum of the contents in the line running into a shut valve, especially one shut very quickly, can cause major pressure build-up and that pressure could release in unpredictable ways. Yes, it is within the realm of possibility that something could burst and cause a spill. It's a pipeline, they can and do break.
On his Facebook page, Fox wrote that authorities "threw the book at Deia for being a journalist." Fox says she wasn't an active particpant in the protest, but merely covering it. It's unclear at this point what exactly Schlosberg was doing while covering the pipeline sabotage, though if the protest involved breaking and entering, trespassing, and disrupting energy infrastructure, it begs the question of whether or not the First Amendment indemnifies journalists who accompany people engaging in criminal activity.
In Goodman's case, however, it's been more than a month since the protests she covered, and Erickson has not publicly released any evidence that Goodman rioted or incited a riot or did anything other than report on the scene.
It appears the prosecutor intends to use her publicly stated point of view as evidence against her. If that's all he's got, it's a chilling affront to the concept of a free press and should not be permitted to stand.
UPDATE: The Bismarck Tribune reports Judge John Grinsteiner has dismissed all charges against Goodman.
Watch Goodman's report that has now led to charges against her below:
The post (UPDATED) <em>Democracy Now</em> Host Amy Goodman Faces 'Riot' Charges For Covering North Dakota Pipeline Protests appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>A month away from Election Day, it seems likely that California will join the four other states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Every poll taken so far this year indicates that most voters favor Proposition 64, a.k.a. the Control, Tax, and Regulate Adult Use of Marijuana Act, with support in three September surveys ranging from 52 percent to 60 percent. If the California initiative passes, it will more than triple the number of Americans who live in jurisdictions that see fit to tolerate cannabis consumption without a doctor's note. Legalization also looks more likely than not in Maine and Nevada, although the numbers there are closer. Massachusetts and Arizona are longer shots.
In addition to the five states considering legalization for general use, four states will decide whether patients should be allowed to use (or, in Montana's case, have easier access to) marijuana for symptom relief. If the Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota initiatives pass, the number of medical marijuana states will rise from 25 to 28. Polling indicates that support is strongest in Florida, where a similar measure fell two points short of the required 60 percent supermajority two years ago.
Here is a rundown of the nine marijuana initiatives on state ballots next month, including relevant polling data where available:
Arizona (Proposition 205): Legalizes marijuana for recreational use, allows home cultivation and sharing, and authorizes production and distribution by state-licensed businesses, some of which eventually could allow on-site consumption. Full text. Support for the measure in three polls conducted this year—one in April and two in August—averages 44 percent. Opposition averages 47 percent, with 9 percent undecided.
Arkansas (Issue 6 and Issue 7): Both initiatives allow production and distribution of marijuana for medical use. Issue 7 (full text) is more permissive than Issue 6 (full text), recognizing more treatable conditions (56 vs. 17) and allowing patients to grow their own medicine. A June survey by Public Opinion Strategies put support for Issue 6 and Issue 7 at 63 percent and 68 percent, respectively. A September survey by Talk Business & Politics/Hendrix College, by contrast, found that Issue 6 had more support: 49 percent, compared to 36 percent for Issue 7. Opposition was 43 percent and 53 percent, respectively. The last medical marijuana initiative in Arkansas fell a point and a half short in 2012.
California (Proposition 64): Legalizes marijuana for recreational use, allows home cultivation and sharing, authorizes production and distribution by state-licensed businesses, which can make deliveries to consumers and allow on-site consumption if licensed for that purpose. Full text. Support for the measure in eight polls conducted this year, including three from last month, averages 60 percent. Opposition averages 35 percent, with 5 percent undecided.
Florida (Amendment 2): Allows the use of marijuana for the treatment of 10 specified conditions as well as "other debilitating medical conditions of the same kind or class as or comparable to those enumerated." Authorizes production and distribution by state-licensed medical marijuana treatment centers. Full text. As a constitutional amendment, the initiative needs approval from 60 percent of voters to pass. Support for the measure in 10 polls conducted this year, including two last month, averages 69 percent. Opposition averages 24 percent, with 7 percent undecided.
Maine (Question 1): Legalizes marijuana for recreational use, allows home cultivation and sharing, and authorizes production and distribution by state-licensed businesses, which can allow on-site consumption with a special license. Full text. Support for the measure in two polls conducted this year—one on March and one in September—averages 53 percent. Opposition averages 40 percent, with 7 percent undecided.
Massachusetts (Question 4): Legalizes marijuana for recreational use, allows home cultivation and sharing, and authorizes production and distribution by state-licensed businesses, which can allow on-site consumption with local approval. Full text. Support for the measure in seven polls conducted this year, including two last month, averages 50 percent. Opposition averages 42 percent, with 8 percent undecided.
Montana (I-182): Allows production and distribution of marijuana by state-licensed providers for treatment of specified medical conditions and others subsequently added by the legislature. Full text. Although medical use has been legal in Montana since 2004, patients' access to marijuana is severely limited due to a 2011 legislative crackdown. I could not find any polling numbers for I-182, but the 2004 initiative passed with 62 percent of the vote.
Nevada (Question 2): Legalizes marijuana for recreational use, allows home cultivation and sharing, and authorizes production and distribution by state-licensed businesses, which cannot allow on-site consumption without new state legislation and local approval. Full text. Support for the measure in five polls conducted this year, including three last month, averages 51 percent. Opposition averages 40 percent, with 9 percent undecided.
North Dakota (Initiated Statutory Measure 5): Allows the use of marijuana for treatment of specified "debilitating medical conditions" and others added by the legislature. Authorizes production and distribution of medical marijuana by state-registered, nonprofit "compassion centers." Full text. In a 2014 poll of likely voters by the University of North Dakota College of Business and Public Administration, 47 percent said marijuana should be legal for medical use, 41 percent said it shouldn't, and 9 percent were neutral. I did not find any polls that asked specifically about the 2016 initiative.
The post Where Voters Are Likeliest to Legalize Marijuana in a Month appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The parents of Andrew Sadek — the 20-year-old North Dakota college student who in 2014 was found floating in a river with a bullet in his head and wearing a backpack full of rocks after secretly working as a confidential informant (C.I.) — have announced their intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Richland County Sheriff Office and the officer who recruited Andrew, Deputy Sheriff Jason Weber.
The family's attorney, Lance Block, told Reason that the family has asked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to step aside from the case, which the family feels has been ignored by law enforcement since Andrew turned up dead. The Sadeks have written to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the FBI, requesting their involvement in solving what they believe to be Andrew's murder, but which they say local authorities have speculated was a suicide.
Sadek, whose tragic story was first covered by Reason TV in 2015 and later cited on the floor of the House by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), was arrested in 2013 after selling $80 worth of marijuana to a confidential informant, then threatened with 40 years in prison unless he agreed to become a confidential informant.
Video footage of Sadek's interrogation shows Weber encouraging the college student to make more "contacts" in the drug trade. Sadek, who had no lawyer representing him, was also ordered to keep his status as a C.I. a secret, including from his parents.
It wasn't until Andrew's body was found on the Minnesota side of the Red River that his parents learned he had been working as a C.I. Since then, the Sadeks say they have been given no indication that any of the law enforcement agencies who had a hand in busting their son and using him as bait for drug dealers were investigating his death as a potential murder.
The wrongful death suit will allege both fraud and negligence, Block explained to Reason. He added that the suit will argue that Sadek was lured into becoming a C.I. with lies, and that once he was put in this obviously dangerous and compromised situation, there was no oversight from the officers he reported to.
Block — who also represented the family of Rachel Hoffman, a Florida college student turned C.I. who was murdered by the drug dealers police had ordered her to buy a gun from — told Reason "of all the cases I've ever looked at, [Sadek's] is the worst case management of a C.I. I've ever seen."
In 2015, the North Dakota Attorney General's office released a report indicating it had no concerns with how law enforcement handled Sadek's case and suggested only minor reforms (if they can even be called that), such as assigning a supervisor to each case and holding a "Pre-Ops briefing."
Block says the Sadek family is "committed to seeing law enforcement held accountable" for its role in the events which led to Andrew's death, and that "they hope this case will inspire the North Dakota legislature to take action and institute reforms or the abolishment" of first-time offenders being used as C.I.s.
Watch Reason TV's original report on Andrew Sadek below.
The post Parents of 20-Year-Old Confidential Informant Who Turned Up Dead To Sue Law Enforcement appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>When University of North Dakota English professor Heidi Czerwiec saw members of the school's ROTC program conducting a previously announced training exercise on campus, she called 911 to report them. She says the dummy weapons they carried "terrorized" her and says she will continue to call 911 each time she sees them training.
The post Brickbats: False Alarm appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Movie theaters, facing ever-increasing competition from innovators such as Netflix and other on-demand movie services are trying new ways to lure potential customers out of their homes.
Some have found success by turning the movie-going experience into more than just squeaky chairs, sticky floors and popcorn.
Recent years have seen a new trend of upscale movie theaters offering food and drink menus that look like they should belong in a restaurant. Some even have tables instead of the traditional rows of fold-up seats.
But that sort of business model only works if you can get the proper licenses from the local or state government.
It won't fly in Bismarck, North Dakota.
City officials there voted last week to rewrite the rules to prevent a movie theater from purchasing a liquor license.
Carmike Theaters, a national chain, had applied for a license and planned to offer beer for sale—something the company is doing across the country as part of a national effort to expand concession offerings.
City commissioners responded by tightening the rules on who can get a license to serve booze. They told the Bismarck Times that the original intent of the city's liquor licensing law was to ensure only restaurants and bars can sell. The new law requires potential licensees to have table tops and a full kitchen before they can serve beer or liquor.
In Bismarck, Carmike Theaters filed the license application on Jan. 20, before city commissioners rewrote the law to specifically exclude them.
R.J. Pathroff, an attorney from the Vogel Law Firm, who represented Carmike Theaters, told the Bismarck Tribune that the city should not base its decision retroactively on a revised law.
City officials say they have never given a liquor license to any establishment that isn't a restaurant or a bar—the classic bureaucratic response of "we've always done it this way" explains so much about what makes government a pain to deal with, when you think about it.
Except that's not even true. As the Tribune points out, the Bismarck Event Center, a convention center, has a liquor license.
Finally, other members of the city council said they had concerns about minors being served alcohol in the movie theater.
Seems like that's an argument for banning all alcohol sales in the city, right? Isn't there an equal concern that minors could get a beer at a bar or restaurant?
If those establishments serve minors, and get caught, they will be punished and will lose their license. Why should a movie theater be treated any differently?
Rewriting a law to specifically exclude or ban one particular business—after they've already applied for the license, no less—is a straight-up intrusion by government into the marketplace. In the absence of a legitimate public safety reason to stop Carmike Theaters from selling beer, this action by the Bismarck City Council screams of nannyism.
It could be worse, though. This guy in England is trying to get theaters to ban popcorn. The horror!
This article originally appeared at Watchdog.org.
The post North Dakota City Rewriting Rules to Keep Theater From Getting Liquor License appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>For 2016, several states have resolved to get tougher on forced prostitution. To this end, they're embarking on costly "awareness" campaigns, enacting new regulations on adult businesses, and launching re-education programs for people who solicit sex. In other words, they're enacting the kind of measures that don't do squat for potential victims but do impose new burdens on business owners, new threats for commercial-sex seekers, and new financial obligations on taxpayers. Happy New Year! Here are four states with sex-trafficking measures that take effect this January:
North Dakota
North Dakota's new law forces people caught soliciting prostitution to enroll in "John School," where they'll be educated about how they are complicit in human trafficking. Anyone arrested for solicitation more than once in a 10-year period faces up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine.
Curriculum for the new "sex offender education program"—as Florida's Public News Service describes it— was designed by the state's Force to End Human Sexual Exploitation (FUSE). Unsurprisingly, FUSE believes all prostitution must be eradicated. "There isn't a way to participate in this kind of behavior that doesn't promote really horrible things happening to other people," the group's leader, Christina Sambor, said.
Florida
?Florida now requires massage parlors, airports, and adult-oriented businesses such as strip clubs and sex-toy shops to prominently display a human-trafficking hotline number or face a civil penalty. The requirement comes following a coordinated push from the Polaris Project, a nongovernmental organization that gets federal funding to run said hotline. The more states Polaris can convince to make posting the phone number mandatory, the more money it can collect from the federal government for its operation. (Data on the effectiveness of this publicly-funded hotline are not publicly available.)
"Taping up a sign is not a burden," one Tampa strip club owner told ABC Tampa Bay—he put one up in the dressing room months ago. But that's not all the law requires. Employees of these businesses must also receive training from the Department of Homeland Security on how to spot potential sex traffickers or victims of sex trafficking.
New York
In New York state, labor trafficking, sex trafficking, prostitution, patronizing a person for prostitution, and having sex with a minor are all well-established crimes. The state's latest human-trafficking measure simply creates new "aggravated" categories of these crimes, which allows law enforcement to tack on extra charges and jail time under certain conditions, such as when the act takes place on or adjacent to a school or athletic grounds.
The new law also expands the definition of felony "advancing, compelling, or profiting from prostitution" to include any situation involving the prostitution of a 16- or 17-year-old, regardless of whether the teen is forced or coerced (previously, force or coercion must have been involved if the victim was above the age of 15). Additionally, it establishes that being a victim of sex trafficking is an affirmative defense to prostitution charges.
Illinois
Like Florida, Illinois now requires certain types of establishments to post a notice featuring the national human-trafficking hotline number. State laws requiring such postings are one of the key goals of the Polaris Project, which also receives ample federal funding to run the hotline.
In Illinois, airports, bars, strip clubs, adult stores, bus stops, train stations, urgent care centers, truck stops, hospital emergency rooms, job-recruitment centers, and farm labor contractors must start posting the hotline number in "a conspicuous place." Failure to properly post the notice will result in a fine of $500 or, after a first offense, a fine of $1,000.
Another new Illinois law ramps up the criminal penalties for patronizing or promoting juvenile prostitution if the minor is in the state foster-care system or otherwise a ward of the state.
The post 'John School,' Homeland-Security Training for Strippers, and Other State Sex-Trafficking Laws Coming This Month appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>From the floor of the House yesterday and in a phone call with Reason today, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) called for an end to the police practice of using non-violent, first-time offenders as confidential informants. He indicated that he intends to introduce legislative reforms.
Responding to a two-part 60 Minutes investigation on confidential informants which aired this past Sunday, the congressman said, "It's time for the Department of Justice to take a close look at how the behavior of confidential informants not only threatens to ruin young lives, but in some cases, end their lives."
Cohen specifically mentioned Andrew Sadek, a 20-year-old North Dakota college student who worked as a confidential informant for a drug task force and whose body was later pulled from a river, shot in the head and weighted down with rocks. Despite his dangerous work for the police and the manner in which his body was found, no law enforcement agency is investigating Sadek's death as a murder, and at least one officer suggested to his parents that Andrew had committed suicide.
Reason TV covered Sadek's story six months before CBS's flagship newsmagazine, which you can watch in its entirety at the bottom of this page.
Congressman Cohen told me in a phone interview that at a minimum, Miranda warnings should be given to potential confidential informants. Presently, many people agree to become confidential informants before they've been arrested, which absolves police officers from the legal responsibility to Mirandize suspects.
Cohen added that there should be limitations on the duties required of informants, as well as training requirements which could ensure that potential informants were capable of such work before they were placed in dangerous situations they couldn't handle. He specifically referenced Rachel Hoffman, the Florida college student who was murdered when police compelled her to make a gun purchase.
Long a critic of marijuana's classification as a Schedule I drug, Cohen told me "we don't need to be arresting people wholesale for marijuana," and that he doesn't think marijuana offenders should be used as informants. He adds, "The public thinks [marijuana] is not worthy of prohibition by the government" and that drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin are much more appropriate targets of drug squads.
"It's all about the money. Drug agencies want more money, more confiscations, more toys to justify their existence," Cohen explains. "They've spent so many years drinking the Kool-Aid, thinking they're saving the world by stopping people from smoking marijuana. They need to understand their priorities, there are more harmful drugs than marijuana."
He is hopeful that there will be bipartisan support of both marijuana policy reform and his prospective legislation regarding confidential informants. On drug policy reform issues, Cohen says he used to not have many Republican allies, but that a substantial amount have grown "more bold and more libertarian."
While stressing that he does not intend to rush the legislation, Cohen expects to put forth a bill sometime in early 2016, at the latest.
Watch below for Reason TV's reporting on Andrew Sadek and the larger issue of confidential informants:
The post Rep. Steve Cohen Calls for Confidential Informant Reform, Citing Story First Covered by Reason TV appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>CBS's venerable newsmagazine, 60 Minutes, will air a piece on tonight's show (airing 7p ET/8p PT) covering the tragic case of Andrew Sadek, a North Dakota college student who became a confidential informant after being threatened with 40 years in prison over the sale of a small amount of marijuana.
After Sadek turned up dead, all the agencies involved with busting him washed their hands of the case, refusing to even investigate his death as a potential murder and insisting to his grieving parents that the young man committed suicide.
I went to North Dakota earlier this year to investigate the case, which you can read here or watch in documentary form.
Original intro writeup below:
On June 27, 2014, the body of 20-year-old Andrew Sadek, a promising electrical student at the North Dakota State College of Science (NDSCS) in Wahpeton, North Dakota, was pulled from the Red River bordering North Dakota and Minnesota.
Missing for two months, the young man was found shot in the head, wearing a backpack filled with rocks.
The grisly death of a college student in one of the safest towns in the state, where violent crime is extremely rare, did not lead to a sweeping investigation. In fact, police immediately said they did not suspect foul play.
Such a supposition strains credulity as it is, but what would be slowly revealed over the following months is that Andrew had been working as a confidential informant for the police, and that his school knew that authorities were busting its students and using them as bait to catch drug dealers.
This is a story of overzealous prosecution of minor drug offenses by a task force answerable only to itself, callous official indifference toward a grieving family, and a lack of transparency by authorities that raises more questions than it answers.
Paramount among these questions: Why are police using non-violent, first-time offenders in the very dangerous role of confidential informant?
The post <em>60 Minutes</em> Covers Andrew Sadek's Suspicious Death on Show Airing Tonight appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>A small business owner in Texas has been fighting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for more than four years after one of the agency's confidential informants was murdered while driving one of his tractor trailers.
As reported in the Houston Chronicle:
Craig Patty, the truck's owner, is still fighting for his day in court. He contends the DEA had no right or permission to use his vehicle or subject his family to possible retaliation by a drug cartel.
He has not been able to get the DEA to pay for the damages to the truck, let alone apologize.
He says the loss of the truck for months crippled his small business; and that the stress of fearing a cartel would retaliate against him and his family for something they knew nothing about shattered their lives.
Earlier this year, I reported on the case of Andrew Sadek, a college student who became a confidential informant for a North Dakota drug task force after being threatened with 40 years in prison over selling two small bags of marijuana on his school's campus.
When he turned up dead with a bullet in his head, the same agencies who busted him and encouraged him to snitch on purveyors of harder drugs than he had ever previously encountered refused to even investigate the case as a potential murder.
Original text below. You can read the full article here.
On June 27, 2014, the body of 20-year-old Andrew Sadek, a promising electrical student at the North Dakota State College of Science (NDSCS) in Wahpeton, North Dakota, was pulled from the Red River bordering North Dakota and Minnesota.
Missing for two months, the young man was found shot in the head, wearing a backpack filled with rocks.
The grisly death of a college student in one of the safest towns in the state, where violent crime is extremely rare, did not lead to a sweeping investigation. In fact, police immediately said they did not suspect foul play.
Such a supposition strains credulity as it is, but what would be slowly revealed over the following months is that Andrew had been working as a confidential informant for the police, and that his school knew that authorities were busting its students and using them as bait to catch drug dealers.
This is a story of overzealous prosecution of minor drug offenses by a task force answerable only to itself, callous official indifference toward a grieving family, and a lack of transparency by authorities that raises more questions than it answers.
Paramount among these questions: Why are police using non-violent, first-time offenders in the very dangerous role of confidential informant?
About 9.45 minutes.
Written and Produced by Anthony L. Fisher.
Camera by Alex Manning. Special Thanks to Jim Wareham, Ike Walker, Nicole Johnson and Bradford Arick of Valley News Live.
MUSIC: "I Was a Boy" and "Dishonest" by Wooden Ambulance (http://www.facebook.com/wooden.ambulance); "Old" by Smokey Hormel (http://www.smokeyhormel.com)
The post Confidential Informants and a Lack of Accountability appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The good news is that North Dakota has passed a law requiring police to get a search warrant to use drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) for most private surveillance. The bad news is that the same bill also clears police to weaponize them with less-than-lethal arms, like Tasers or pepper spray.
Justin Glawe takes note at The Daily Beast in a much larger story about North Dakota's growing drone culture:
The bill's stated intent was to require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to use a drone to search for criminal evidence. In fact, the original draft of Rep. Rick Becker's bill would have banned all weapons on police drones.
Then Bruce Burkett of North Dakota Peace Officer's Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons. "Less than lethal" weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are therefore permitted on police drones.
Becker, the bill's Republican sponsor, said he had to live with it.
"This is one I'm not in full agreement with. I wish it was any weapon," he said at a hearing in March. "In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized. Period."
Some law enforcement officials, Glawe notes, complain that they shouldn't have to get a warrant for surveillance. The sheriff of Grand Forks County told him they need the unwarranted surveillance in order to get the evidence to bring to a judge in order to get a warrant in the first place. Glawe describes the police having a "trust us" mentality that they won't abuse their authority with drones, but he points out that police in North Dakota actually got the help of a Department of Homeland Security border drone without a warrant in order to track down a man accused of stealing cattle (how very North Dakota).
Glawe's full story is worth a read here. He also reports on the role of the drone industry in trying to push back against civil liberties protections out of fears it will somehow restrict "development" (as in opportunities to sell drones to law enforcement agencies).
The post Watch Out for Drones with Pepper Spray in North Dakota appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>On his 20th birthday, Andrew Sadek sat down with a drug task force agent and
agreed to become a confidential informant to "clear up" the felony charges against him for selling a small amount of marijuana on his college's campus. About seven months later, his body was found in the Red River bordering North Dakota and Minnesota, shot in the head and wearing a backpack filled with rocks.
As I reported for Reason TV, the authorities have publicly stated they do not suspect foul play and tried to convince Sadek's parents that their son had committed suicide, even though he had never previously shown depressive tendencies. Law enforcement also refused to consider that threatening a 20 year-old with 40 years in prison over selling 3.3 grams of marijuana may have placed him in a dangerous situation he was unprepared to handle.
In a video released last week via an open records request by Inforum, Sadek, unaccompanied by a lawyer or his parents, had his fateful meeting with Deputy Sheriff Jason Weber of the Southeast Multi-County Agency (SEMCA) drug task force and "voluntarily" agrees to become an informant.
The conversation is always polite, but Weber frequently reminds Sadek that he faces felony charges unless he helps SEMCA nail a few drug dealers. Weber also uses the "carrot and stick" approach, telling Sadek that by helping the police bust drug dealers in one of the safest towns in the state, he also had the opportunity to make "quick, easy cash," with the incentives increasing in conjunction with the increased risk.
Archie Ingersoll at Inforum writes:
Weber then began probing Sadek for information, asking if he knew people at the college or around town who could sell him marijuana. At one point, the detective specifically asked if there were any football players on campus from which he could buy drugs.
Sadek told Weber he knew of two dealers, but neither played football. One dealer lived in Wahpeton, and the other was in Fargo, he said.
Showing eagerness, Weber asked Sadek if he thought he could arrange to buy pot from the Wahpeton dealer that same day. "I could try," Sadek responded.
Weber told Sadek that once he'd made enough drug buys to remove the possibility of felony charges, he could work as a paid informant and earn "quick, easy cash."
"You go buy some marijuana, it takes you five minutes, you'll get paid 100 bucks to do a deal. If you go buy meth, pills, whatever, you get paid 200 bucks," Weber said.
Not spending 40 years in prison, forever branded a convicted felon… and 200 bucks? What a deal!
How Andrew Sadek wound up shot and in a condition more plausibly ascribed to a murdered and disposed-of body than to a young person's suicide remains a mystery, but this video leaves no question that Weber, representing SEMCA, encouraged Sadek to engage purveyors of "meth, pills, whatever," a more hardened and dangerous class of drug dealer than your average college pot smoker would be accustomed to. Moreover, Weber encouraged Sadek to make new "contacts," essentially telling him to seek out drug dealers he didn't yet know.
When Sadek expressed concern that the drug dealers he informed on would learn he was a "rat," Weber downplayed the risk:
During the meeting, Weber did not specifically make Sadek aware of the potential dangers involved with being an informant. However, Weber did have Sadek, like other task force informants, sign a contract acknowledging he understood the rules of informant work. One of those rules is that informants may have to testify in court and, in the process, blow their cover.
To ease any concerns Sadek had about this possibility, Weber told him, "I've been doing this a long time. My partners have been doing this a long time. We have never, ever had anybody come back to testify, yet."
Looking for more reassurance, Sadek asked, "They're not going to know that I ratted them out?"
In response, Weber explained that after undercover deals, the task force waits a few months and lets the dealer sell to other people before making an arrest. By that time, the dealer won't know for sure which buyer was wearing a wire, Weber said.
Because Sadek knew of just two drug dealers, Weber told him to start looking for more "contacts," or dealers. "Start working on your contacts. Let's get some of these deals done. That way the faster you get done, the faster …"
When Sadek turned up dead, the very law enforcement agencies who sent him far deeper into the drug trade than he had ever been before declined to vigorously investigate his death. A report issued by the North Dakota Attorney General "did not have any concerns with the case files where Sadek was a CI and conducted controlled buys."
For more background on the case and the trend of colleges and law enforcement colluding to make confidential informants out of non-violent, first-time offending college students, watch the video below:
The post Drug Task Force Encouraged College Student to Go Deeper into Drug Trade, Then He Turned Up Dead appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>On June 27, 2014, the body of 20-year-old Andrew Sadek, a promising electrical student at the North Dakota State College of Science (NDSCS) in Wahpeton, North Dakota, was pulled from the Red River bordering North Dakota and Minnesota.
Missing for two months, the young man was found shot in the head, wearing a backpack filled with rocks.
The grisly death of a college student in one of the safest towns in the state, where violent crime is extremely rare, did not lead to a sweeping investigation. In fact, police immediately said they did not suspect foul play.
Such a supposition strains credulity as it is, but what would be slowly revealed over the following months is that Andrew had been working as a confidential informant for the police, and that his school knew that authorities were busting its students and using them as bait to catch drug dealers.
This is a story of overzealous prosecution of minor drug offenses by a task force answerable only to itself, callous official indifference toward a grieving family, and a lack of transparency by authorities that raises more questions than it answers.
Paramount among these questions: Why are police using non-violent, first-time offenders in the very dangerous role of confidential informant?
A QUIET FARM KID
Growing up on a family-owned farm in Rogers, North Dakota, Andrew Sadek was active with the raising of their cattle and particularly close to his parents, who lost their older son, Nick, in a car accident in 2005.
Andrew was a few weeks shy of graduation when he went missing in May 2014. Days later, the Sadeks received the shocking news that a warrant had been issued for Andrew's arrest for two felony counts of distributing a controlled substance.
In an interview with Reason TV, Andrew's mother, Tammy, described her deceased younger son as "kind of a homebody" whose only previous brush with the law was a speeding ticket.
"His dreams were to become an electrician and take over the family farm," Tammy says of Andrew. "We sent him off to college, he was excelling at college. That's why this was such a shock to us."
For two gut-wrenching months, the Sadeks prayed Andrew would come home to the farm to help with the spring calving, while police continued to assume Andrew was on the lam.
Then, Andrew's body was found.
Shot. Wearing the backpack filled with rocks. Not wearing the clothes he was last seen in. Without his wallet. An autopsy proved inconclusive in determining suicide or homicide, and no weapon has yet been found.
But according to the Sadeks, Sgt. Steve Helgeson of the NDSCS Campus Police, the lead officer in charge of the investigation, tried to convince them that their son put on the rock-filled backpack, shot himself in the head, and somehow propelled himself into the river.
Tammy says Sgt. Helgeson told her "That's what kids do in that area, they commit suicide," referring to the golf court bridge over the river that connects the Bois de Sioux golf course.
No one who knew Andrew supports this theory. His friend Justin Rippentrop told Reason TV that Andrew was a "laid-back, generous, fun-loving guy," who never showed depressive tendencies and seemed in particularly good spirits as his graduation date approached. Crucially, no one at the college has indicated that Andrew was exhibiting any signs of emotional distress, and no suicide note has been found.
A DRUG TASK FORCE LACKING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
What the police knew but continued to keep from the Sadeks, was that Andrew had been working as a confidential informant for the Southeast Multi-County Agency (SEMCA), a drug task force answerable only to its own board, a 12 person committee made up of local senior police officers and elected officials.
Andrew first came into contact with SEMCA in April 2013, after he twice sold marijuana, a total of 4.5 grams or $80 worth, to a confidential informant. Shortly thereafter, a police raid on Andrew's dorm room turned up nothing but a small plastic grinder and some marijuana residue.
But the grinder, plus the two sales to SEMCA's informant in a "school zone," which in North Dakota includes colleges, was enough for authorities to threaten Andrew with two Class A felony charges, each carrying a possible 20 year sentence. Or, he could "voluntarily" agree to work as a confidential informant.
Upon enrolling at NDSCS, Andrew signed a Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) waiver obligating the school to inform his parents of any disciplinary issues, but the school never notified the Sadeks following the raid on his dorm room, or any time thereafter.
Faced with the prospect of spending the bulk of his life in prison, and without consulting a lawyer or his parents, Andrew chose to become an informant, agreeing to make two controlled buys from each of three SEMCA-targeted drug dealers.
When Andrew was last seen leaving his dorm building on May 1, 2014, he still owed SEMCA one last controlled buy.
Refusing to accept authorities' speculation that Andrew had committed suicide, the Sadeks hired a private investigator, who discovered a significant amount of water in the wheel wells of Andrew's car, suggesting that someone may have driven Andrew's car to the banks of the river where his body was found, before returning it to the campus parking lot.
WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?
Because Andrew's body was found on the Minnesota side of the river, the NDSCS campus police claimed the case was not in their jurisdiction, which the North Dakota Attorney General's office confirmed. But the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension told Valley News Live, a newscast in Fargo, North Dakota, that they have nothing to do with it. For all the agencies involved with busting Andrew Sadek for selling a small amount of pot, no agency is willing to take the lead in solving his violent death.
Valley News Live reporter Nicole Johnson told Reason TV, "It took a long time to get the results of the autopsy. So I called (Sgt.) Steve Helgeson, the officer in charge of this case, and he told me it was not a top priority." Johnson adds that no one who has directly worked on the case has answered a question of theirs since Andrew was found in June 2014.
Finding no help from the local authorities, the Sadeks' demanded a state-wide investigation, which culminated in a report from the North Dakota Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Investigation, released in January 2015.
The report revealed for the first time that Andrew had been working as a confidential informant for SEMCA.
That the school knew of the raid on Andrew's dorm room in 2013, but allowed his parents to learn this news only after he went missing raises significant ethical and legal questions in its own right. But the fact that SEMCA only disclosed Andrew's status as a confidential informant because they were forced to by the Attorney General, more than a year after the young man was first targeted by the task force, demonstrates a heartless lack of concern for confidential informants even after they end up dead.
The SEMCA report runs all of four and a half pages, nearly half of which merely names the board members and the authors of the report. And despite the obvious dangers inherent with being an informant working for the police to bust drug dealers, the report found that SEMCA had acted appropriately when using Andrew, a non-violent first time offender, as a C.I. The report's conclusion offered four minor tweaks to protocol, such as having a "Pre-Ops briefing" and assigning a supervisor to each case.
In February 2015, Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote about Wahpeton Police Chief Scott Thorsteinson, a SEMCA board member, and his response to the violent death of a confidential informant in his town:
Thorsteinson conceded that police informants work in "a dangerous subculture" but said cops usually "bend over backwards to protect their C.I."
Thorsteinson said Sadek's death is no cause for reflection on the methods used by drug warriors in North Dakota. "These types of investigations are conducted the same way pretty much everywhere where people breathe in and out," he said. "They never did anything wrong that needed to be changed." Thorsteinson, who acknowledged that Sadek's mother "had to go through a difficult ordeal," explained that busting drug offenders is a thankless but necessary job. "Law enforcement… we're generally not popular," he told KVLY. "The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they're hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway." In Thorsteinson's view, the citizens he serves are sheep, while harmless pot dealers like Sadek are wolves.
The lack of a statewide chain of command allowed SEMCA to operate as an entity answerable only to itself. And though SEMCA's board remains intact, the agency now falls under the jurisdiction of the North Dakota attorney general. When contacted by Reason TV about the use of college students as confidential informants, Liz Brocker, a spokesperson for North Dakota's Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, replied, "We have no opinion about confidential informants."
The Wahpeton Police Department, Richland County State's Attorney, SEMCA, and both NDSCS and its campus police department all either declined to comment or did not respond to Reason TV's request for comment.
DISPOSABLE YOUNG LIVES
Andrew Sadek is not the only young person to be terrified into working as a C.I. In 2014, a confidential informant at the University of Massachusetts died of a drug overdose, prompting criticism that if his parents had been notified, he might have been able to receive treatment for substance abuse. In 2015, Buzzfeed reported on the widespread use of confidential informants on the campus of Ole Miss.
Most notably, in 2008, Florida State student Rachel Hoffman was murdered when police compelled her to make an illegal gun purchase. A sweeping 2012 New Yorker article recounted Hoffman's tragic fate:
She had never fired a gun or handled a significant stash of hard drugs. Now she was on her way to conduct a major undercover deal for the Tallahassee Police Department, meeting two convicted felons alone in her car to buy two and a half ounces of cocaine, fifteen hundred Ecstasy pills, and a semi-automatic handgun.
The operation did not go as intended. By the end of the hour, police lost track of her and her car. Late that night, they arrived at her boyfriend's town house and asked him if Hoffman was inside. They wanted to know if she might have run off with the money. Her boyfriend didn't know where she was.
"She was with us," he recalled an officer saying. "Until shit got crazy."
Two days after Hoffman disappeared, her body was found in Perry, Florida, a small town some fifty miles southeast of Tallahassee, in a ravine overgrown with tangled vines. Draped in an improvised shroud made from her Grateful Dead sweatshirt and an orange-and-purple sleeping bag, Hoffman had been shot five times in the chest and head with the gun that the police had sent her to buy.
Hoffman's death led to state-wide reforms regarding the use of confidential informants, including common-sense modifications such as forbidding the use of recovering drug addicts as informants, additional training for informants and officers, and more robust recordkeeping requirements so that unsuitable candidates are not needlessly placed in potentially lethal situations. In March 2015, a new proposal made it through Florida's Senate Criminal Justice Committee to "add teeth" to "Rachel's Law," which includes criminal penalties for officers who fail to follow protocol or endanger their assigned informants.
THE DEATH THEY WISH WOULD GO AWAY
When the police aggressively prosecute young people unfamiliar with the criminal justice system and then use them as confidential informants, they assume a certain amount of responsibility for their safety. But the lack of interest by the agencies that ensnared Andrew Sadek in vigorously investigating his death as potential murder suggests they wish the case would just go away.
Which only begs the question, why?
Why are the authorities not investigating this case with the same aggressive zeal they continue to use on the campus of NDSCS busting small-time drug sellers?
The heartbroken Sadek family searches for justice for their son, though they are not confident that any law enforcement agency will continue to investigate Andrew's death. Tammy hopes that Andrew's death can serve as a cautionary tale to other young people who get in over their heads and feel they have no other choice but to work as an informant.
"I don't want other kids to end up in this situation," Tammy says. "Talk to your parents. Talk to a lawyer. Don't do the police's job for them."
About 9.45 minutes.
Written and Produced by Anthony L. Fisher.
Camera by Alex Manning.
Special Thanks to Jim Wareham, Ike Walker, Nicole Johnson and Bradford Arick of Valley News Live.
MUSIC: "I Was a Boy" and "Dishonest" by Wooden Ambulance (http://www.facebook.com/wooden.ambulance); "Old" by Smokey Hormel (http://www.smokeyhormel.com)
Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
The post The Disposable Life of a 20-Year-Old Confidential Informant appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>In the early hours of Saturday morning, a multi-county chase in North Dakota ended with a suspect, David James Elliot, whose wife says he was unarmed, shot six times by University of North Dakota cops as he sat in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of a local hospital. A police report on the incident accuses Elliot of fleeing from police, reckless endangerment, and reckless driving, all allegations appearing to stem from the chase itself. Elliot remains in the hospital and will require facial reconstruction surgery according to his wife. Elliot was not arrested and there are no police officers monitoring him at the hospital.
The local police won't release details on the shooting, telling the Grand Forks Herald that media inquiries should be directed to the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI), which is investigating the shooting. But the attorney general's office, which supervises the BCI, tells the Herald that while that agency is investigating the shooting the local police are responsible for media inquiries.
Police have yet to say what the chase of Elliot began over, which officer was involved in the shooting, or what prompted the shooting, leading the Herald to run an editorial calling the police's lack of transparency "unaccountable." The Herald notes:
Want to breed public distrust of the police and law-enforcement in general? Here's a checklist on how to do it:
- Withhold basic information and let rumors run rampant in coffee shops and on social media sites.
- Appear unorganized and ignorant of basic protocols, such as which agency is actually in charge of public information.
- Adopt a "nothing to see here" approach when the whole darn town knows (and sees) otherwise.
- Disregard state law, which states that agencies are required to provide information in these types of incidents, including a chronology of events as well as initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer and a brief summary of what happened.
"Silence breeds mistrust, and with good reason," the Herald editorializes, hoping the public demands more information. Read the whole thing here.
The post Lack of Transparency on North Dakota Police Shooting Spurs Scathing Editorial appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>So-called "personhood" measures have failed in both states where they were on the ballot this election. Voters in North Dakota rejected Measure 1, a constitutional amendment declaring an "inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development." And Colorado voters rejected Amendment 67, Personhood USA's efforts to change the Colorado constitution to define "unborn human beings" as people.
Personhood USA fought for—and Colorado voters rejected—similar changes to Colorado's constitution in 2008 and 2010.
"Voters in Colorado have, for the third time, seen through an attempt to advance an extreme measure that wouldn't just ban abortion, but potentially throw women and their doctors behind bars for obtaining or providing many basic reproductive health care services including contraception and fertility treatments," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Amendment 67 was rejected by about 64 percent of Colorado voters, according to The Denver Post.
The Colorado personhood initiative wasn't expected to pass, but anti-abortion advocates had higher hopes for North Dakota.
"Today's victory at the North Dakota ballot box is yet another in a long history of voters from different political backgrounds and personal philosophies rejecting these extreme and unconstitutional ballot measures," said Northup.
The post Personhood Measures Fail in Both Colorado and North Dakota appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Attorneys for Craig Cobb and Kynan Dutton, who planned to take over Leith, N.D. and turn it into an all-white enclave, argued that the men's guns were legal and asked for the seven felony terrorizing charges against their clients to be dismissed, or reduced to disorderly conduct.
District Judge Donald Jorgensen instead ordered a trial. A date for that trial has not been set, according to the Tribune.
The post White Supremacists Plead Not Guilty To Terrorizing Residents of North Dakota Town With Guns appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The 2,400 residents of Casselton were asked to leave Monday afternoon after a BNSF Railway train derailed about a mile from town. A series of explosions sent massive fireballs and a smoke plume into the air. Some cars were still burning a day later.
The post Evacuation Lifted in Site Near North Dakota Train Crash appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Nobody was injured in the wreck, Sgt. Tara Morris of the Cass County Sheriff's Office reported, in the Los Angeles Times.
The post North Dakota Town Evacuated After Train Carrying Crude Oil Crashes appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>Cass County Emergency Manager Dave Rogness says the derailment was reported about 2:30 p.m. Monday less than a mile from the city. Rogness says residents have been told to stay indoors as a precaution. He says there have been no reports of injuries to the train crew or residents.
The post Fiery Train Derailment Reported in North Dakota appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>The story, meant to reveal holes in school security, has received scrutiny from police and school officials who say the reporter broke city and state laws by entering the schools without permission.
Moorhead and West Fargo police say they are investigating the matter. It is unclear whether the reporter will face charges.
Moorhead Lt. Tory Jacobson said that after seeing the TV station's report, the city's police officers, who know it's illegal to simply walk into a school, felt they had an obligation to investigate the reporter's actions.
"The concern we had was that they were specifically doing something that wasn't lawful," Jacobson said.
(Hat tip to A. Barton Hinkle)
The post Police Investigate Reporter Who Exposed School Security Holes appeared first on Reason.com.
]]>