JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Uber and Lyft Flex Their Lobbying Muscle
Brief #66 – Technology Policy
By Mindy Spatt
Who’s Afraid of a President, or a Presidential Front Runner? Uber and Lyft are lobbying to kill legislation supported by President Biden, and Lyft is pushing a California ballot initiative that likely presidential candidate Governor Gavin Newsom is staunchly opposed to.
A Path to Reducing Reducing Wildfires
Brief #147 – Environmental Policy
By Haley Moore
A new law ensures a future for forests with the environment in mind.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed into law on August 16, 2022. $375B will go to aid the climate crisis over the course of the next decade.
Executive Order 14067: Considerations for Leveling the Digital Assets Playing Field
Brief #65 – Technology Policy
By Steve Piazza
On March 9 of this year, President Biden issued Executive Order 14067 “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets.” Its impetus is a directive for governmental departments and agencies to examine the government’s role regarding the centralization of digital assets, specifically those pertaining to financial transactions.
The Art of Brainwashing: Russia’s Mass Media’s Successful Project
Brief #146 – Foreign Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
Since the day when Russia started a so-called “special operation in Ukraine”, the iconic phrase of the average Russian has become “But all are afraid of us!”
When a Siberian grandma tells you that she doesn’t have heating, water, and electricity in her old house in February when the outside temperature falls to -13F and the air in her unheated bedroom is freezy, and her family still uses a wobbly wooden toilet in the backyard, she will proudly add “But all are afraid of us!”
Abortion: The Legal Challenges Continue Post Roe V. Wade
Brief #142 – Health & Gender Policy
By Geoffrey Small
The abortion battle in the U.S. justice system continues months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade. Major federal, state, and city lawsuits are unfolding across the country, potentially setting legal precedents that will determine the future of reproductive rights.
Preview of US Senate Races in Arizona and Wisconsin
Brief #33 – Elections & Politics
By: Ian Milden
Control of the U.S. Senate will be up for grabs in the 2022 mid-term elections. Competitive races in key states will determine the balance of power. In this brief, I will preview the US Senate races in Arizona and Wisconsin.
Situation Update #12: The Ukraine Crisis
Brief #145 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
This week marked an important date for Ukraine, August 24, 2022, which marks six months since the Russian invasion and the 31st anniversary of the countrys independence from the Soviet Union. The same day also saw a missile strike on an eastern Ukrainian train station that killed 22 people.
The Colorado River is Teaching a Lesson the Archeologists Know All Too Well
Brief #146 – Environmental Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
The Colorado River, a water source that irrigates 5 million acres of farm land and supplies 40 million people with drinking water, has long been severely overallocated. For decades, so much water has been diverted to supply farms and cities that the river’s delta in Mexico has dried up. Those that depend on its bounty are now in crisis as the western U.S. has undergone a 23-year megadrought and the nation’s largest reservoirs have subsequently dropped their water levels by three-quarters.
America’s Minimum Wage Debate: Is It Time for an Increase?
Brief #134 – Economic Policy
By Inijah Quadri
The current federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. Despite being below the poverty line for a country like the USA, the minimum wage has not seen any increase since 2009.
There has been some level of advocacy at the federal level, such as we had with President Obama in 2015, but nothing really was done to raise wages, even after his rallying cry. This has led to even more advocacy for an increase in the federal minimum wage, as increases regularly happen at the state level without any issues.
Russia’s Celebrities Leave the Country Because of the War in Ukraine
Russia’s Celebrities Leave the Country Because of the War in Ukraine
Foreign Policy Brief #153 | By: Yelena Korshunov | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: Twitter
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: kp.ru
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
“I see yapping about those who left – Alla, Maxim, Chulpan, Zemfira … It’s Russia that left you. Because Russia is them, not you,” Andrey Makarevich, the legendary Russian singer, said on his personal blog. After February 24th, 2022, when Putin’s army invaded Ukraine with a bloody violent war, a number of top Russia’s celebrities left the country. Their destination is the USA, Israel, Latvia, Germany, and the other places where they feel safe to speak about their disagreement with the war and call for peace.
Andrey Makarevich, whose dad fought for freedom during World War II, was a Russian dissident in the 70s. He was dismissed from the Moscow Architecture Institute for playing rock music. However, he continued to play it underground, which was dangerous in the USSR at that time. Makarevich and his Israeli wife live now in Israel where Andrey recently became a happy father. After his new statements, I doubt that he will return to Russia while Putin’s regime rules the country.
Popular Russian comedian and TV host Maxim Galkin left Russia for Israel with his wife, legendary pop star Alla Pugacheva, and their two kids. Although Maxim and Alla didn’t talk about their long-term plans, on the first days of the war Galkin said on his Instagram blog “From early morning in touch with relatives and friends from Ukraine! Can’t put into words how I feel! How is this possible?! There can be no justification for war! No war!” Later, he posted a video for his Instagram followers where he said “I am asked by my dear subscribers to continue to lead Instagram, as I did before. With funny videos with children, with humorous content. I don’t see any spiritual and moral opportunity to do this, so for now, neither Instagram nor the new Telegram channel that I started will be the same as it was before February 24th.” His life, like many others’, was divided into “before” and “after” when the war in Ukraine began.
Russian actress and founder of the “Podari Zhizn” (Gift a Life) Foundation, Chulpan Khamatova, left Russia for Latvia with her two daughters due to the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Chulpan spoke about it in an interview with a journalist Ekaterina Gordeeva, adding that she was afraid to return to Russia so as not to “lose her conscience” and “not go to jail” under a new criminal code article about “discrediting” the army. According to Khamatova, in order to return to Russia and not go to jail, she had two options.
“The first is to stop talking about what is this war and what is this tragedy, not to pay attention to what I see with my own eyes, and to the information that I receive from my Ukrainian friends,” she says. “Lie to yourself, lie to the whole world, live not by the truth. This is at best if they don’t force black to be called white,” Khamatova believes. The second way out, according to Chulpan, is to apologize for the fact that she did not support the start of the military operation:
“Well, further down the list, how to play by the rules of the game that will be dictated to me.” On February 25th, Chulpan Khamatova publicly spoke out against the war in Ukraine and called for an end to hostilities. Her signature also appears under the appeal of Russia’s cultural figures against the war.
Policy Analysis
Russian celebrities who have left the country often have been criticized. However, they feel brave to speak out loud protesting against the war. They consciously left the country where they had public acknowledgement and great profit. As opposed to them, there are Russian celebrities who stayed in the country passionately supporting the “special operation” in Ukraine as the war is officially called in Russia. There are also others, such as a famous opera soprano Anna Netrebko who tried to sit on two chairs. She kept silent about her attitude toward the war until she lost work in the US and Europe over her ties to the Russian president and her vague position, but then spoke out and has been called a traitor.
“I have taken some time to reflect because I think the situation is too serious to comment on without really giving it thought,” she said. “First of all, I am opposed to this war. I am Russian and I love my country but I have many friends in Ukraine and the pain and suffering right now breaks my heart. I want this war to end and for people to be able to live in peace. This is what I hope and pray for. I want to add, however, that forcing artists, or any public figure to voice their political opinions in public and to denounce their homeland is not right. This should be a free choice. I am not a political person. I am not an expert in politics. I am an artist and my purpose is to unite across political divides.”
Photos taken from:
gazlive.kz and kino.24tv.ua
Today, when Russia drops down the rusty iron curtain and freedom of speech doesn’t exist anymore, public people who made their sparkling career in this country face a choice of staying in the kingdom that goes back to the dark ages of a neo-stalinism, lie, aggression, and threats, or leaving their homeland for the free world where they will have a luxury to say “No war.”
SEC Proposes Climate Change-related Corporate Disclosure Requirements
SEC Proposes Climate Change-related Corporate Disclosure Requirements
Environmental Policy Brief #140 | By: Stephen Thomas | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: Time
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Andrew Kelly / Reuters
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala D. Harris is attempting to hold public corporations accountable for their impacts on global warming, ensuring in the process that investors know whether the firms in which they have a financial stake are taking climate change seriously.
In support of this overarching goal, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will accept public comments via the Federal Register through May 20, 2022, on its notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed rule becomes a part of the Code of Federal Regulations, it “would require registrants to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports,” according to an April 11 notice. Specifically, according to the notice, registrants would be required to provide “information about [their] climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on its business, results of operations, or financial condition,” such as “a registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions, which have become a commonly used metric to assess a registrant’s exposure to such risks.”
Policy Analysis
The proposed rule passed the four-member commission March 21 by a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Hester M. Peirce the dissenter.
“I am pleased to support today’s proposal because, if adopted, it would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers,” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler said in a March 21 statement that announced the forthcoming rulemaking. “Our core bargain from the 1930s is that investors get to decide which risks to take, as long as public companies provide full and fair disclosure and are truthful in those disclosures.”
“Today,” Gensler continued, “investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognize that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions … Today’s proposal thus is driven by the needs of investors and issuers.”
The regulated community should have expected the proposed rule since Oct. 15, 2021, when the administration released what it called “a comprehensive, government-wide strategy to measure, disclose, manage and mitigate the systemic risks climate change poses to American families, businesses, and the economy…”
The administration further announced in its Oct. 15 statement that the SEC staff “is developing recommendations to the Commission for a mandatory disclosure rule for public issuers that is intended to bring greater clarity to investors about the material risks and opportunities that climate change poses to their investments.” Today, the staff’s work is reflected in the proposed climate-risk rule.
Photo taken from:
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
(click or tap to enlargen)
Registrants will raise any number of issues in their public comments. Commissioner Peirce, an appointee of President Donald Trump, in her own statement opposing the proposed rule, raised the universal compliance question: What will compliance cost? Indeed, Peirce points out what she believes are salient missing links in the proposal, among them a “reasonable estimate of costs to companies.” Peirce also asserts that the commission lacks the “authority to propose this rule” and that existing regulations already require “disclosure of the material effects that compliance with environmental regulations may have on capital expenditures…”
The disclosure regimen proposed in the Federal Register now is based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, (TCFD) according to the notice, in which the SEC also states that “we believe that proposing rules based on the TCFD framework may facilitate achieving this balance between eliciting better disclosure and limiting compliance costs.” The TCFD is a product of the Financial Stability Board, a self-described “international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system.”
The rule is not in effect yet, of course; nevertheless, there are public corporations—as justifiably cost-conscious as they may be—that are already aboard with what the SEC in particular and the Biden-Harris administration more broadly are trying to do. IBM is one example.
In its Environmental, Social, and Governance Report for 2021, released April 12, IBM stated that the corporation was “inspired” by the TCFD. The corporation’s report reads, in part, “IBM does not expect climate change or compliance with environmental laws and regulations focused on climate change to have a disproportionate effect on the company or its financial position, results of operations, and competitive position. Conversely, we believe that there is opportunity to use IBM’s AI, hybrid cloud, and other technologies to assist clients with managing their climate-related risks…”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Federal Register Climate Change Disclosure Notice
Federal Register: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
SEC release quoting Chair Gensler
SEC.gov | SEC Proposes Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
Peirce dissent
SEC.gov | We are Not the Securities and Environment Commission – At Least Not Yet
Administration’s October face sheet
IBM’s Environmental, social, and governance report for 2021
IBM’s news release on its report
What is the TCFD?
About | Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) (fsb-tcfd.org)
Trans Rights Are Human Rights, But State Legislatures Say Otherwise
Trans Rights Are Human Rights, But State Legislatures Say Otherwise
Social Justice Policy Brief #37 | By: Alexandra Ellis | April 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: NBC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: WCAX
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
2022 is the year of unprecedented anti-trans-legislation. The question becomes, why? It seems every day conservative media is reporting a new anti-trans bill being introduced in State legislatures. No one is saved from this debate: including parents of LQBTQIA+ youth and multinational corporations like Disney.
Policy Analysis
In 2016, North Carolina passed the controversial HB2 legislation (also called the “Bathroom Bill”) in a special legislative secession. HB2 restricted transgender individuals’ ability to use public restrooms that corresponded with their gender identity. Rather, HB2 required individuals to utilize the bathroom that matched the sex that they were assigned at birth on their birth-certificate. In other words, HB2 limited the movement of trans-individuals and made it against the law to use a bathroom that they were not assigned at birth – making it impossible to live out their gender identity.
The passage of HB2 generated public outrage, and many corporations and celebrities protested the bill. Though still codified, the bill is without teeth due to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
In the ACLU’s lawsuit, Carcaño v. Cooper (2018) (formerly Carcaño v. McCrory), the ACLU won a preliminary injunction to HB2 as the ACLU argued that HB2 violated the 14th amendment (which protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sex and gender). In September of 2018, NC District Court also agreed with the ACLU’s plaintiffs that the law likely violated a Charlotte City Council’s ordinance, “making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of “marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression.” See Carcano v. Cooper at 3; (Doc. 127 at 12–13 (alteration in original); see also Doc. 210 ¶ 200.).
Following the ACLU victory against HB2 came the Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. (2020), where the Supreme Court found that sex is an included term protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 140 S. Ct. 1731. This meant that the Court recognized that sex discrimination is outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the case centered on employers who fired or let go of long-standing employees once they came out as either homosexual or transgender. The Court said the termination an individual because of “sex or gender” alone violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination pertaining to sex and sex’s various manifestation (such as sexual orientation or gender identity in this case).
Now in 2022, the year of historic anti-trans legislations, conversative led state governments continue to try to limit transgender rights. As of March 20, 2022, 238 anti-trans legislation bills have been brought forward in state legislatures. Themes of anti-tans bills vary from limitation on trans-individuals to play in high school and collegiate sports, limiting gender affirming care, bathroom use, a child’s ability to be “out” in a classroom, to a K-12 teacher’s ability to refuse to use a child’s chosen pronouns.
However, the most prominent, and copied bill across state legislatures is called “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which limits trans athletes ability to play in high school or collegiate level sports. In fact, since the start of 2022, fourteen states have brought forward a copy-cat or similar “Save Women’s Sports Act”. These states include Kansas, Arizona, Alaska, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Delaware. These bill aims to amend state codes relating to the correctness of biological sex from official birth certificates of students before students are designated and allowed to play on female teams.
These bills state that students who are assigned male at birth may not play on female sport teams but that individuals assigned female at birth may play on male sport teams. The purpose of this legislation is to discriminate on the basis of sex.
Photo taken from:Ringo Chiu / Reuters
These Bills may have come as backlash from Lia Thomas’s 2022 win at the NCAA Women’s Division I of the 500- yard freestyle swimming event. In an exclusive interview before the event, Sports Illustrated wrote that Lia Thomas has “become a right-wing obsession, a regular topic of discussion on Fox News. Conservative opinion sites have called her a man and deadnamed her, purposely using the name she went by before transitioning.” Right-wing obsession of Lea Thomas’s story and “Save Women’s Sports Bills” has been reported on by MSNCB as connected to dark money, and a strategy to wedge the American vote.
Furthermore, Sport Illustrated reported that hateful comments and threats of violence to Lia Thomas’s life have been so persistent and awful that “During a training trip early this year in Florida, the [Penn] school’s swimmers were asked by coaches not to wear their school gear lest they make themselves targets. The university’s social media handlers have turned off comments on some posts that mention” Lia Thomas as well. Hateful comments on BBC’s reporting of Lia Thomas’ win also sparked conversation about using biology as reasoning to discriminate – similarly in eugenics. One commentor wrote, “Women have uterus’s, produce eggs, have periods, PMS, can reproduce, lactate…compared to a biological man.” This comment and comments of similar nature to this ignore that some individuals assigned female at birth are born without uteruses, are not able to reproduce, will never have periods, or experience PMS. The anti-trans arguments based on biological sex, sex characteristics, and scientific defense of gender attributes is very much an arbitrary defense to advocating for discrimination based on sex. It is a fear-based response very similar to the “scientific” defense of Jim Crow laws in the south, which promoted legal de jure segregation based on race and such Jim Crow laws have been discounted and these scientific thoughts have been abandoned.
Additionally, national anti-trans violence is at an all-time high. Even citizens in the sleepiest corners of America, like liberal Morriston, VT, are not immune to the messaging of calls for anti-trans legislation. The Vermont Digger reported on April 13, 2022, of Fern Feather’s tragic death by homicide. Fern Feather, a resident of Heinsberg, Vermont, was found killed in Morriston, Vermont on Wednesday morning by Vermont police. In response to the Fern’s death, Vermont Governor Phil Scott condemned the hostility towards the transgender community.
In a speech, Governor Scott said, “[e]xploiting fear and targeting divisive rhetoric at people who are just trying to be who they are is hateful and can lead to violence.” The decisive rhetoric of the anti-trans movement that has taken foothold is leading to real violence against the LBTQIA+ community. Yet, there does not seem to be as much celebrity or corporate commendation of the anti-trans movement as there was back in 2016 – with individuals speaking out against NC’s HB2.
For example, it took a multinational walk out of Walt Disney’s LBTQIA+ employees for the CEO of Disney, Bob Chapek, to speak out against Florida’s HB 1157, “Parental Rights in Education” bill (dubbed colloquially the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”). In an open letter, employees of the Walt Disney Corporation said that the company’s stance against the bill has “utterly failed to match the magnitude of the threat to LGBTQIA+ safety.” The Walt Disney Corporation has considerable influence in the Florida legislature. In fact, the Disney corporation is cited as contributing 4.8 million to the Florida 2020 election cycle. As a result, journalists, employees, and fans of the Disney Corporation have criticized the company’s lack of advocacy against the bill, describing the behavior of the company as “disheartening”.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
To watch for Anti- Trans legislation, go to https://freedomforallamericans.org/legislative-tracker/anti-transgender-legislation/.
To learn more about Walt Disney’s employee walk-out because of the Don’t Say Gay bill listen to NPR podcast: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088048998/disney-walkout-dont-say-gay-bill.
To learn about how to have tough conversations about trans-rights, watch ACLU’s https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/your-guide-to-talking-about-attacks-on-trans-youth.
To get involved with dismantling Anti – Trans legislation follow ACLU’s efforts to challenge laws and consider taking a pledge to support trans youth or donate to the cause at: https://action.aclu.org/petition/take-pledge-support-trans-youth-now.
Is Internet Isolationism Possible?
Is Internet Isolationism Possible?
Technology Policy Brief #57 | By: JA Angelo | April 14, 2022
Header photo taken from: E&T Magazine – IET
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Financial Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Internet isolation has been the talk of the block recently as Russia continues to invade Ukraine. However, many do not know what internet isolationism means. Isolationism is an international relations term used to describe a country that cuts itself off from the outside world. Therefore, internet isolationism is when a country prevents the use of the Internet to disseminate outside information to its citizens. North Korea already practices internet isolationism, as do China and Iran, to a lesser degree. Russian Federation President Putin is trying to also adopt this practice
Many American digital giants like Microsoft, Netflix, Minecraft, Apple, Samsung, have discontinued service in Russia. In turn, Russia placed a digital barrier on the rest of the world. This was accomplished by using internet censorship equipment to censor the news and other programs that foment dissent .
It also is likely likely that Russia will censor or prevent YouTube from reaching Russians who depend on various channels for unbiased news on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
However it is still possible for those in Russia to spread what Putin calls “misinformation” about the Ukraine invasion. Those hoping to report the truth and avoid prison can do so through YouTube, bouncing VPN and IP addresses off of various satellites and receivers, or by means of crossing borders via messengers for others to report in a bordering country. Journalists and others face stiff prison sentences if they are found guilty of this crime under a new censorship law that was passed recently by the State Duma and the Federation Council. Many feel this is a return of the Soviet Union of the 1980s.
Policy Analysis
If Russia continues down this trajectory, it is very possible that Putin’s actions will push the region back into the information dark ages. This could enable Putin to turn Russians against the western world as he would blame us for Russia’s troubles. This reentry into the information dark ages would very likely ruin Russia’s economy more than any sanctions.
We need to address this Russian Internet isolation by responding as a global front against Russia, more specifically, Putin. We can accomplish this by providing technological equipment (e.g., emergency broadcast radios, satellite phones, antennas, and loudspeakers to Russian journalists, such as Aleksei Pivovarov, who seek to report the truth about Putin and his inner circle of oligarchs.
Photo taken from: Radio Free Europe
(click or tap to enlargen)
The region has worked extraordinarily hard to put the turmoil resulting from the Soviet Union behind them. We cannot allow the area to once again enter a time of Stalin’s Gulag and other communists practices. By providing this equipment to unbiased Russian journalists, we could possibly turn the tide on Putin’s war!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Aleksei Pivovarov started a YouTube channel after leaving his journalism career due to a rise in censorship. He started his YouTube channel to report on news without censorship. He is the general producer of RTVi. The channel broadcasts in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltic States, Germany, Israel, the United Kingdom, Spain, the USA, Canada and Australia. Currently, the channel has three million subscribers.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, has prevented Russian YouTube accounts from making money from videos. Aleksei plans to continue broadcasting his channel, but fears for his life. It is likely he will flee to a neighboring NATO country to continue his channel outside of Russia.
The link is https://youtube.com/c/RTVIchannel.
Agroforestry: An Ancient Agriculture for a Modern Farm Bill
Agroforestry: An Ancient Agriculture for a Modern Farm Bill
Environment Policy Brief #139 | By: Jacob Morton | April 8, 2022
Header photo taken from: Climate Institute
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more enivornment policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Hutchinson News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 2023, our current Farm Bill will be up for renewal, meaning Federal legislators will have the opportunity to reevaluate how we choose to financially support our food and agricultural industries and services. The Farm Bill is an omnibus piece of legislation, meaning many different programs, measures, and diverse subjects are packaged together into a single document for a single vote by the legislature; much like the recent infrastructure bills. Historically, the Farm Bill focused primarily on programs that supported the production of commodity crops – corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, rice, peanuts, dairy, and sugar – but since 1973, has grown in scope to include subjects like nutrition, conservation, horticulture, bioenergy, and meat production. The Farm Bill is renewed every five to six years, providing an opportunity for policymakers to comprehensively address agricultural and food issues.
According to the EPA, the agriculture sector was responsible for approximately ten percent of all US greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, not to mention its extensive and continued history of pollution and degradation of our soils, waterways, forests, and other natural ecosystems, as well as the abusive industrial production of meat and application of chemical toxins harmful to not only the planet’s biodiversity, but to humans as well. Humans must eat, and despite the track record of modern agricultural practices, agriculture remains one of the greatest tools at our disposal to fight climate change, revive the health of our ecosystems, and feed the world’s population at the same time. This is where Agroforestry comes in.
Agroforestry, as defined by the USDA, is “the intentional integration of trees and shrubs with crop and animal production to create environmental, economic, and social benefits.” The word “agroforestry,” however, is just a term that has recently become popularized, much like “regenerative agriculture,” but as a method of food production and land management, it has been practiced around the world since long before the USDA, or even the United States, existed. Agroforestry is an ancient agricultural system that not only produces food, but “supports biodiversity, builds soil horizons and water tables, and sequesters carbon from the atmosphere.”
Agroforestry is practiced in many forms. It can be used as a conservation practice by planting trees and other perennials along rivers and streams to prevent erosion and nutrient pollution, a practice often referred to as “riparian or vegetative buffers.” Similarly, by reincorporating trees into an open landscape, typical of most farmland, one can transform the farm into an atmospheric carbon sink rather than a carbon source, actively fighting climate change by pulling CO2 out of the air and putting that carbon into the soil via tree roots, thereby reviving the soil microbial food web.
While agroforestry can mean tending existing forests to produce plant and fungal species desirable for human consumption, it also encompasses replanting open lands that had previously been deforested for grazing and annual crop production, with trees and other perennial species. These lands can either be fully reforested or planted with trees and other perennials in strategically spaced rows with livestock grazed or annual crops grown in the open space between, known as Silvopasture or Silviculture.
According to Project Drawdown, a climate change mitigation think tank based out of San Francisco, California, “agroforestry practices are some of the best natural methods to pull carbon out of the air.” The group ranked silvopasture as “the ninth most impactful climate change solution in the world, above rooftop solar power, electric vehicles and geothermal energy.” Drawdown reports that globally, as of 2020, roughly 1.36 billion acres of land are currently managed in silvopasture systems, and if about 540 million more acres were put into silvopasture by 2050, “carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced over those 30 years by up to 42 gigatons—more than enough to offset all of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans globally in 2015, according to NOAA—and could return $206 billion to $273 billion on investment.”
Photo taken from: ProAg
Here in the US, current corn, soy, wheat, and cotton production (all commodity crops subsidized by the Federal government) account for 284.42 million acres. Transitioning these acres to agroforestry systems could theoretically contribute to over half of the carbon sequestration required globally to meet our 2050 goals. While not all of these acres would be transitioned into silvopasture systems (utilizing livestock), Project Drawdown notes that even agroforestry systems that do not utilize livestock, are estimated to sequester 4.45 tons of carbon per hectare (2.47 acres) per year. All of these commodity crops can be integrated into agroforestry systems.
From an economic perspective, agroforestry provides farmers and landowners with the opportunity to diversify their income streams and create long-term viability for their farms. A farmer who plants fruit producing trees and shrubs along the banks of a stream that runs through their land, will catch the excess nutrients running off their crop fields before they are flushed into the stream, thus, preventing pollution and saving the nutrients (and money) that would otherwise be wasted. Those saved nutrients will feed the trees and shrubs, which in turn produce fruit and bring the farmer more money and more resilience. According to the USDA, “U.S. fruit and tree nut value of production has increased steadily over the past decade,” with “Tree-nut value [rising] dramatically to record levels of around $10 billion in recent years.”
Similarly, if a farmer raises livestock, incorporating trees into one’s pastureland allows that farm to “stack functions” (to steal a permaculture term), meaning the farmer will not only earn an income from the meat they produce, but the manure produced by the livestock will feed the growing trees, which then produce fruits, nuts, or timber, increasing and diversifying the farmer’s income, all while providing shade and healthier pastures for the livestock, plus the extra fruit and nut droppings to be scavenged.
And through a social justice lens, agroforestry represents an opportunity to educate ourselves on the land-stewardship methods Indigenous cultures have practiced for centuries, and to hold space for these communities to lead the way for future land-use and agricultural policies based on the cultural knowledge they have amassed and passed down of the lands from which they have historically been displaced.
Additionally, agroforestry provides a model of food production suitable for public lands, such as parks. Trees provide shade, appealing aesthetics, and even food, while the land beneath them is still usable for public purposes, as opposed to fields of vegetables. Such community agroforestry projects create greater food security for communities and opportunities for marginalized communities to reclaim their public spaces and food sovereignty.
Policy Analysis
So, if agroforestry can help fight climate change, promote biodiversity, increase food security and farm viability, improve living conditions for livestock, and provide an opportunity for Indigenous leadership, why is it not more popular? According to Dietmar Stoian, lead scientist for value chains, private sector engagement and investments with the research group World Agroforestry (ICRAF), because agroforestry is not widely understood in the US and trees can take years to “bear fruit,” farmers, landowners, and local governments have a tough time committing to such an investment.
This is where the Farm Bill comes in. As legislators prepare to craft and vote on the next Farm Bill in 2023, we have the opportunity to press our representatives to support funding for agroforestry projects and farm system transitions. While the USDA has officially recognized agroforestry as an approved conservation practice (meaning farmers and landowners can now receive federal funding and technical assistance to implement agroforestry projects on their lands), few programs providing that support currently exist, and those that do are either underfunded or have additional caveats.
Federal programs like the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (SARE) offer opportunities for select farmers and landowners to receive funding and consulting services to implement sustainable practices, some of which fall into the agroforestry category, but these farms are then expected to conduct some sort of research project in return and become an educational resource for other farms; an undertaking not necessarily feasible for most farmers. Other conservation incentive programs applicable to agriculture exist, such as the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP), or the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), but all require significantly more funding and the funds that are available are not typically reserved for agriculture but shared with general conservation efforts as well.
Another strategy the Federal government has taken is to provide funding to state and local agencies to administer their own assistance programs for conservation efforts that include some USDA recognized agroforestry-related practices. Some have been successful in spreading the word about agroforestry and its benefits, like Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), which has been collaborating with local farmers and landowners to implement vegetative and riparian buffers along waterways, in an effort to mitigate nutrient runoff into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. But federal funding for these efforts has been limited, and not every state or local government sees this as a priority use of funds.
David LeZaks, senior fellow at the Croatan Institute, a research institute based in Durham, North Carolina, points to the lack of resources out there for farmers, landowners, and investors to feel confident in committing to an agroforestry project.
Photos taken from: Propagateventures (.com)
(click or tap to enlargen)
LeZaks says this is largely because there “is not a one-size-fits-all approach to agroforestry. It depends on climate, objectives, markets, and all sorts of other variables. There really aren’t the technical resources—the infrastructure, the products—that work to support an agroforestry sector at the moment.”
Several groups, however, are working to change that. A start-up called Propagate, based in New York and Colorado, and working primarily in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, has developed software analytics to help farmers analyze their operations and predict long-term cost-to-revenue and yields for potential agroforestry projects and farm transitions to agroforestry systems. Propagate evaluates the farmer’s business goals, uses geographic information system (GIS) software to map out land, and determines the trees most appropriate for the particular agricultural system. Propagate then helps to implement the agroforestry system and connects the farmer with third-party investors through a revenue-sharing model in which the investor takes a percentage of the profit from harvested tree crops and timber. Propagate will even help farmers to arrange commercial contracts with buyers looking for agroforestry-sourced products.
Propagate is a for-profit start-up, having received $1.5 million in seed funding from Boston-based Neglected Climate Opportunities, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust, in 2020. But non-profit groups have been pushing the movement forward as well. The Savannah Institute, based in Illinois and Wisconsin, provides research, education, and outreach to support the growth of agroforestry in the Midwest, while Interlace Commons does similar work in the Northeast, as well as Appalachian Sustainable Development in the Southeast.
The interest and investment potential from the private sector is there, the question is, will the Federal government follow suit and provide the resources necessary to actualize real change in our agriculture sector? For the 2023 Farm Bill, Federal legislators should consider the investment potential, not just economically, but environmentally and socially as well, of supporting agroforestry-based food production.
In addition to providing the traditional subsidies to farmers for growing fields of commodity crops, the Federal government should consider providing extra incentives to commodity producers who begin to integrate tree crops and agroforestry projects into their farming systems. Additionally, similar incentives should be offered to ranchers and cropland owners growing corn and other crops specifically for livestock feed, and increased funding should be allocated to local conservation district offices earmarked for agroforestry projects and education on a smaller scale.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Project Drawdown (drawdown.org): Founded in 2014, Project Drawdown® is a nonprofit organization that seeks to help the world reach “drawdown”—the future point in time when levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere stop climbing and start to steadily decline.
Savanna Institute (savannainstitute.org): The Savanna Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that works with farmers and scientists to lay the groundwork for widespread agroforestry adoption in the Midwest US.
World Agroforestry (worldagroforestry.org): Leveraging the world’s largest repository of agroforestry science and information, we develop knowledge practices, from farmers’ fields to the global sphere, to ensure food security and environmental sustainability.
USDA National Agroforestry Center (USDA NAC): Advancing the health, diversity, and productivity of working lands, waters, and communities through agroforestry.
Writer’s Sources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Cummins, R. (2021, January 19). Roadmap to regeneration in the United States, 2020–2030. Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/roadmap-to-regeneration-in-the-united-states-2020-2030
Derouin, S. (2021, July 31). Agroforestry is key to cleaning up waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Civil Eats. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://civileats.com/2021/07/23/agroforestry-is-key-to-cleaning-up-waterways-and-the-chesapeake-bay/
Hanes, S. (2020, July 31). Agroforestry is both climate friendly and profitable. Civil Eats. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://civileats.com/2020/07/24/agroforestry-is-both-climate-friendly-and-profitable/
US EPA. (2021, July 27). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. EPA. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
USDA, Agroforestry Strategic Framework: Fiscal Years 2019 – 2024 (2019). Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-agroforestry-strategic-framework.pdf.
USDA. (2021, January 4). Agricultural production and prices. USDA ERS – Agricultural Production and Prices. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-production-and-prices/
How Texas Senate Bill 8 Opened The Door To Vigilante Laws And Why These Laws Pose Such A Danger
How Texas Senate Bill 8
Opened the Door to Vigilante Laws and
Why These Laws Pose Such A Danger
Civil Rights Policy Brief #186 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | April 5, 2022
Header photo taken from: Business Insider
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Society for Human Resource Management
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 2021 the State of Texas passed an anti – abortion law with a unique enforcement mechanism. Under the law, any private citizen could sue the person who tries to get an abortion, the doctor who performs the procedure or the clinic who provided the abortion procedure to a woman. If successful in the lawsuit the private citizen who brought the action would be entitled to $10,000. The bill was highly unpopular and was challenged in Texas state and federal courts. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court but the Court refused to suspend the law while the case was ongoing.
In response to the controversial enforcement mechanism of the Texas abortion law, copycat bills have been introduced in other states. Last month in Idaho, Governor Brad Little signed an abortion ban into law that was modeled on the Texas abortion bill. It also allows private citizens to bring private lawsuits against providers that perform abortions while also providing a monetary award for the plaintiff if successful. But the bills have not been restricted to only abortions. In Florida, Governor Ron De Santis has been vocal in his support for two bills – the Parental Rights in Education bill (popularly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill) and the Stop Wrongs To Our Kids and Employees bill (known as the Stop WOKE act). Both bills permit parents to sue schools and teachers if the schools teach critical race theory or speak to the students about gender and identity issues in the classroom.
As a response to these bills, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he was working with California state legislators on a bill that would permit private citizens to sue “anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells an assault weapon…in the State of California.” The bill was modeled on the Texas law where the plaintiff would also get a $10,000 reward if their lawsuit is successful.
Policy Analysis
While one aspect of the Texas abortion bill was its clear defiance of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion by making it difficult to get one, the long – term effect of the Texas law is that it opened the door for other states to enact bills that could be viewed as “vigilante laws.”
One reason why the Texas abortion law is appealing to other states is because of the unique enforcement mechanism written into the law. Because the abortion law in Texas would be enforced by private citizens bringing private lawsuits, the law could not be challenged in a court of law. The way the law was written made the law immune from scrutiny. No court could overturn the law or declare the law unconstitutional since enforcement of the law lay with private citizens and not state officials or prosecutors. This unique structure gave rise to the term “vigilante law” since any private citizen, even one who had no connection to the parties involved (and in the Texas’ case the plaintiff bringing the suit did not even have to be a Texas resident), could simply walk into a courthouse and initiate a lawsuit. The plaintiff was given the power to decide who they wanted to sue and when. This obviously led to the copycat abortion law in Idaho and the two bills in Florida. There no longer had to be any worry that a court would declare a law unconstitutional and void because those laws as written could no longer be subject to any kind of judicial scrutiny or review.
But this new structure of writing bills is nothing more than a gimmick to make an end run around the Constitution and not follow certain laws and case law. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land with a unique framework that provides and protects certain fundamental rights – free speech right, right to bear arms and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures among many others.
What Texas did was decide it did not agree with a woman’s right to an abortion and decided to enact a law denying that woman her right. And with the way the law was written the law could not be challenged in a court of law. Texas had found a way to deprive a person of their rights without being explicit about it.
Photo taken from: Alex Wong / Getty Images
(click or tap to enlargen)
But now other states have decided that if there is a right that they do not want a person to have that they can just follow the example set by Texas. Instead of nullifying a woman’s right to an abortion Florida and Governor De Santis have gone a step further and now decided that a teacher’s speech in a classroom on certain topics should be banned without any recourse for review in open court. Does anyone believe that only abortion, critical race theory or LGBQT issues will be the only issues that receive the “vigilante law” treatment?
If these types of laws are allowed to stand than it can only a be a matter of time before any random citizen is permitted at their whim to enforce a law against a fellow citizen that might deny another legal right – a private lawsuit that might deny the right to vote, a private lawsuit that challenges a neighbor’s immigration status, a private lawsuit questioning a friend’s reading of a banned book or even private lawsuits that touch on matters of religion.
“Vigilante laws” offer a direct threat to the rule of law in the United States. The Texas law is the most serious threat because it stubbornly refuses to comply and adhere with Supreme Court law – Roe v. Wade. But in the long term, it is the fact of giving private citizens the right to sue their family, friends and neighbors in a bounty style manner that causes the most concern. It is never a good thing to let people take the law into their own hands. So, it is imperative that the Supreme Court, or maybe even Congress, step in and stem the spread of private citizen lawsuits under laws that were designed to evade judicial review and scrutiny. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Washington Post – good article on background of vigilante laws and the likely future of vigilante laws in the wake of Texas Senate Bill 8.
Reveal News – an investigative report in how Texas Senate Bill 8 was conceived and why it appealed to a right wing audience.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #7
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #7
Foreign Policy Brief #152 | April 6, 2022
Header photo taken from: Axios
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: AP News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Ukrainian forces have retaken the Kyiv region and other surrounding areas over the weekend as Russian troops have begun a withdrawal from certain areas of Ukraine. The ongoing invasion has proven to be much more difficult than it seems Russian military officials had expected. About two-thirds of Russian troops have left the Kyiv region and are already in Belarus or on their way there. Though the withdrawal is seen as victory in holding back Russian forces, they are likely to regroup, resupply, and gather reinforcements which may instead intensify fighting later on in other regions. The Russian forces have begun what the Kremlin has termed “the second phase” of its operation where military focus will be on the Eastern part of the country. As they have withdrawn they have left behind large numbers of corpses littered across cities in the Kyiv region. Images of hundreds of people lying dead on the street in the city of Bucha have sparked international outrage.
On Monday April 4th, 2022, Ukrainian president Zelensky made his first trip outside of Kyiv since the beginning of the war, making his way to the city of Bucha to show the world what was left in the wake of the invading Russian forces. Zelensky said in one of his overnight addresses that over 300 people had been tortured and killed in Bucha. European leaders and the United Nations human rights chief in response joined the Ukrainians in condemning the bloodshed that was exposed after the Russians withdrew from the area. Meanwhile, Russian propaganda has claimed that the Ukrainian forces have staged the war crimes themselves. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the grisly scenes outside Kyiv were a “stage-managed anti-Russian provocation”.
Policy Analysis
Zelensky has again appealed for more weaponry as it appears Russia is preparing a new offensive focused on the Eastern part of the country. The U.S. and allies have announced a new sanction package against Russia considering the increasing evidence of war crimes committed in Ukraine. The new sanctions will ban all new investments in Russia, increase sanctions on Russian financial institutions and state-owned enterprises, and continue to embargo Russian government officials and their family members. Russia is already facing a deep recession and high inflation, new sanctions will increasingly squeeze the Russian economy into what Western states hope will result in submission and cessation of hostilities.
Still, not all European states have condemned Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. After weeks of the world witnessing a united Western front against the war and increasing pressure from his European counterparts, Vladimir Putin enjoyed two victories this weekend as both Hungary and Serbia elected pro-Russian candidates.
Photo taken from: NPR
Although Serbia had previously backed two United Nations resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it remains almost entirely reliant on Russian gas and was unlikely to move far from Russia’s sphere of influence.
Yet the most significant victory came from the reelection of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban. Orban has been openly pro-Russian and himself has close ties to Putin. Hungary is both a member of the EU and NATO and thus implicitly has approved sanctions against Russia, However Hungary has been a major hindrance in EU talks on banning energy imports from Russia.
Hungary under Viktor Orban has drifted away from its European neighbors in recent years, favoring closer ties to Putin’s authoritarian style of governance. What Viktor Orban will do now that he has secured reelection as a pro-Putin candidate, at the same time as reports and images of war crimes are coming out of Ukraine, and fresh rounds of sanctions against Russia are implemented remains to be seen. As Russian troops withdraw and regroup, we also await the next steps the Kremlin will take in its war and how it will react to further sanction and pressure from the U.S. and our allies.
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
Health and Gender Policy Brief #148 | By: Inijah Quadri | April 4, 2022
Header photo taken from: CannaCon
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: NBC
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 36 states, medicinal marijuana is permitted, and in 14, it is lawful to consume marijuana recreationally. On the subject of legalizing marijuana, this article examines papers published in top economic, public policy, and medical publications, concentrating on the health repercussions of cannabis legalization.
Our article examines the impacts of legalization on adult and adolescent cannabis users. The legalization of recreational cannabis use in the US has drastically cut the price of cannabis, increased its potency, and made it more available to consumers. As such, the regular use of cannabis should be monitored. Cannabis legalization and regulation necessitate the study of the health repercussions of these policy changes, and this knowledge should be used to design ways of regulating marijuana that minimize negative health effects.
There is strong evidence that where medicinal marijuana is permitted, alcohol-dependent individuals consume less alcohol. However, the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on other critical public health outcomes needs to be discussed. Research is being done, but additional data needs to be obtained, allowing us to make more solid findings.
Policy Analysis
Cannabis is known by many different names: dope, weed, marijuana, hemp. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, cannabis is the second most often used psychoactive drug in the United States after alcohol and before nicotine. Cannabis is most often used by adolescents and young adults. Cannabis, formerly seen as a deadly gateway drug, is now more widely accepted as a drug that can be used on its own. Recreational marijuana use is increasingly legal in more and more places throughout the world.
So is it good for the populace? Is marijuana a gateway drug that should be avoided, or is it a cure-all? In the last several months, numerous studies have been released demonstrating both the dangers and the advantages of the hemp plant and its various compounds.
Researchers recently released the results of a study, which indicated that cannabis users have increased sexual function and greater orgasms. A reduction in fear and guilt (as a result of cannabis use) can lead to better sex, according to the experts. To put it another way, those who consume alcohol or smoke marijuana may have better sex.
On the other hand, contrary to popular belief, cannabis usage can cause long-term cognitive decline, especially in children and adolescents whose brains are still growing. There is a negative impact on decision-making and cognitive abilities, as well as on the amount of time it takes to accomplish mental tasks. And the effects of such “drunkenness” might last for a long time.
Photo taken from: WBUR
(click or tap to enlargen)
Another European research study, published in 2019, found that everyday marijuana smokers are three times more likely to suffer from psychotic episodes than those who do not use the drug. Another group of researchers found an eightfold increase in psychoses.
Advocates of legalizing cannabis argue that making it available at state-run dispensaries, as well as limiting the amount of THC in the medicine and requiring additives to be clearly labeled, will significantly lessen the substance’s health risks.
Proponents also argue that removing the stigma associated with being a cannabis user will allow for more open access to treatment and preventative programs. Without fear of repercussions from the law and/or public stigmatization, people might learn about the dangers of cannabis use and discuss their concerns with trained professionals who can help them.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Addiction (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.15764)
Di Forti M, Quattrone D, Freeman TP, Tripoli G, Gayer-Anderson C, Quigley H, Rodriguez V, Jongsma HE, Ferraro L, La Cascia C, La Barbera D, Tarricone I, Berardi D, Szöke A, Arango C, Tortelli A, Velthorst E, Bernardo M, Del-Ben CM, Menezes PR, Selten JP, Jones PB, Kirkbride JB, Rutten BP, de Haan L, Sham PC, van Os J, Lewis CM, Lynskey M, Morgan C, Murray RM; EU-GEI WP2 Group. The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe (EU-GEI): a multicentre case-control study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 May;6(5):427-436. Doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30048-3. Epub 2019 Mar 19. PMID: 30902669; PMCID: PMC7646282. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30902669/)
Gahr M, Ziller J, Keller F, Schönfeldt-Lecuona C. Increasing Proportion of Cannabinoid-Associated Psychotic Disorders: Results of a Single-Center Analysis of Treatment Data From 2011 to 2019. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Nov/Dec;40(6):642-645. Doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001278. PMID: 33009227. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33009227/)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-scope-marijuana-use-in-united-states)
Roman, Pablo & Ortiz-Rodriguez, Ana & Romero-Lopez, Ana & Rodriguez-Arrastia, Miguel & Ropero-Padilla, Carmen & Sánchez-Labraca, Nuria & Rueda-Ruzafa, Lola. (2022). The Influence of Cannabis and Alcohol Use on Sexuality: An Observational Study in Young People (18–30 Years). Healthcare. 10. 71. 10.3390/healthcare10010071. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357478672_The_Influence_of_Cannabis_and_Alcohol_Use_on_Sexuality_An_Observational_Study_in_Young_People_18-30_Years)
Subbaraman M. S. (2014). Can cannabis be considered a substitute medication for alcohol?. Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 49(3), 292–298. (https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agt182)
Will the United States Adopt Europe’s Digital Markets Act?
Will the United States Adopt Europe’s Digital Markets Act?
Technology Policy Brief #56 | By: JA Angelo | April 3, 2022
Header photo taken from: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The New York Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The European Union continues to lead the way in developing tech policies. In its most recent efforts, the EU passed the Digital Markets Act regulating big tech firms’ efforts to monopolize e-commerce, digital advertising, app stores, and other digital tools we rely on daily to organize our lives. The new law means that Google can no longer send targeted ads without its user’s consent and that Apple would need to offer mobile apps outside of the App Store. Violators of this legislation could be fined up to 20 percent of the company’s global profits. This could result in tens of billions of dollars. European standards are typically adopted around the world.
The Digital Markets Act was passed in large part in response to Silicon Valley dominating the Information Age. Watchdog groups mentioned the legislative efforts of lobbyists to water down the new law and the Biden administration’s efforts of stating that the Digital Markets Act targets American companies. This European regulation is applicable to those corporations whose market cap is over 75 billion euros, or $83 billion. The list includes Alphabet, the owner of Google and YouTube; Amazon; Apple; Microsoft; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
Policy Analysis
Although, both sides of the aisle in Congress have held high profile technology policy meetings, neither side has introduced digital media legislation to address tech giants unchecked powers amid the numerous antitrust cases filed against Google and Meta.
The United States has also not, thus far, adopted any European legislation addressing the digital world. This is in part likely due to tech giants lobbying Congress for these tech firms to maintain control over the digital marketplace.After all, these firms answer to their stakeholders. The absence of Congressional regulation minimizes the marketability of smaller mom and pop companies from profiting in the ever growing digital world.
The only way these smaller businesses have a shot at offering apps and other digital means to consumers is if the United States passes a set of digital regulations similar to those passed by the European Union. This would enable smaller firms to develop digital products at a fraction of the cost the tech giants offer. Well designed federal regulation can eliminate the tech monopolies and increase competition.
Photo taken from: EURACTIV, Shutterstock / Twin Design
(click or tap to enlargen)
However, one could argue that there are too many scams out there and that consumers prefer trusted tech giants. In the end, we as consumers, will likely continue padding C-level (CEO, CFO, COO etc.) executives pockets; perhaps driving these small firms out of business.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
To advocate for the Digital Markets Act, The Information Technology Industry (ITI) Council, is one trade association that aims to provide fair competition in the digital world. You can find out more or donate to its cause at optics.org
Critics of the Digital Markets Act include the Chamber of Progress. The CEO of this trade group mentioned that the legislation targets United States businesses and will affect the American workforce. You can find out more about this group or donate to its cause at progresschamber.org.
House Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana: Manufacture, Distribution and Possession
House Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana: Manufacture, Distribution and Possession
Health and Gender Policy Brief #151 | By: Stephen Thomas |
April 3, 2022
Header photo taken from: Phonenix New Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: MassLive (.com)
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
By a vote of 220-204, the U.S. House of Representatives Friday, April 1, passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act or the MORE Act aimed at decriminalizing the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. New York Democrat and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced the legislation, an unsuccessful version of which the House passed in 2020.
The vote was virtually along party lines with 217 Democrats and only three Republicans voting in favor of the legislation.
Policy Analysis
Many states have already addressed cannabis legalization. 36 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes and 19 states and D.C. have decriminalized adult recreational use of cannabis, Nadler said.
“If states are the laboratories of democracy, it is long past time for the federal government to recognize that legalization has been a resounding success and that the conflict with federal law has become untenable,” Nadler said in his April 1 floor statement, adding that “criminal penalties for marijuana offenses, and the resulting collateral consequences, are unjust and harmful to our society. The MORE Act comprehensively addresses these injustices…”
Enforcement of existing federal cannabis laws have had ethnic implications, according to the MORE Act. Indeed, Section 2 of the measure states that “A legacy of racial and ethnic injustices, compounded by the disproportionate collateral consequences of 80 years of cannabis prohibition enforcement, now limits participation in the industry.” Additionally, as the bill reads, “Fewer than one-fifth of cannabis business owners identify as minorities [and] historically disproportionate arrest and conviction rates make it particularly difficult for people of color to enter the legal cannabis marketplace, as most States bar these individuals from participating.”
The primary active ingredient in this marijuana decriminalization legislation is the striking of the word Marihuana [sic] from parts of the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The National Cannabis Industry Association backed the bill. There is, however, organized resistance, which surely will make its voice heard in the Senate.
“The effort to end criminalization from marijuana offenses–which we fully support–is being used to obfuscate the recklessness of this bill as it relates to public health,” Smart Approaches to Marijuana President Dr. Kevin Sabet said in a statement April 1. “The proponents of this bill continue to propagate the myth that marijuana is harmless, based on research from 50 years ago.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pointed out following the bill’s House passage that “President [Joseph R. Biden Jr.] said, during the campaign, our current marijuana laws are not working.
Photos taken from: Long Beach Post / Brandon Richardson; Getty Images
(click or tap to enlargen)
He agrees that we need to rethink our approach, including to address the racial disparities and systemic inequities in our criminal justice system, broaden research on the effects of marijuana, and support the safe use of marijuana for medical purposes.”
The bill ignores the very real mental health risks posed by today’s high-potency marijuana, which numerous studies have tied to the development of psychosis and schizophrenia. It includes little protection to ensure that the marijuana industry–backed by the major tobacco companies–isn’t marketing their products to minors and increasing the overall use of marijuana. As written, the MORE Act is a mess and irresponsible with respect to public health and safety considerations.”
According to Congress.gov, if the MORE Act passes in the Senate and is signed by the president, the measure would:
- Replace statutory references to marijuana and marihuana with cannabis
- Require the Bureau of Labor Statistics to regularly publish demographic data on cannabis business owners and employees
- Establish a trust fund to support various programs and services for individuals and businesses in communities impacted by the war on drugs
- Impose an excise tax on cannabis products produced in or imported into the United States and an occupational tax on cannabis production facilities and export warehouses
- Make Small Business Administration loans and services available to entities that are cannabis-related legitimate businesses or service providers
- Prohibit the denial of federal public benefits to a person because of certain cannabis-related conduct or convictions
- Prohibit the denial of benefits and protections under immigration laws because of a cannabis-related event (e.g., conduct or a conviction)
- Establish a process to expunge convictions and conduct sentencing review hearings related to federal cannabis offenses
- Direct the Government Accountability Office to study the societal impact of cannabis legalization
Unfortunately it is doubtful if the MORE ACT will pass in the Senate where Republicans are likely to filibuster and some Democrats may oppose the bill.
The results of a Gallup poll released Nov. 4, 2021, showed that 68 percent of respondents supported “legalizing marijuana.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
A breakdown of the House vote on the MORE Act:
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives – Vote Details
Rep. Nadler’s Floor Statement:
National Cannabis Industry Association (Pro-MORE Act)
U.S. House & Senate Priority Legislation | NCIA (thecannabisindustry.org)
Smart Approaches to Marijuana (Anti-MORE Act)
Gallup Poll 2021
Support for Legal Marijuana Holds at Record High of 68% (gallup.com)