Samuel Bagdorf of San Francisco lighting a marijuana pipe yesterday at a medical-marijuana clinic in that city. (ERIC RISBERG / Associated Press)
The Obama administration's new policy on medical marijuana should make it easier for New Jersey and Pennsylvania to legalize its use for seriously ill patients.
The Justice Department has removed a major legal hurdle by issuing a memo directing federal prosecutors in states that allow medical marijuana not to target patients or their sanctioned suppliers when the drug is purchased for legitimate purposes
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration's, and makes more sense.
Federal agents are still empowered to go after people whose marijuana distribution and non-medical use is not permitted under state law, or who use the sale of medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes.
With that cleared up, New Jersey and Pennsylvania should join the 14 other states that allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes.
A bill pending in Trenton would authorize state-registered marijuana users and their primary caregivers to have up to six marijuana plants and one ounce of marijuana. Those eligible would get ID cards issued by the state Department of Health and Senior Services. Marijuana could also be purchased at licensed centers.
Lawmakers may need to fine-tune the New Jersey bill to limit access to only those with legitimate illnesses.
In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Mark Cohen (D., Philadelphia) has introduced a similar bill that would require prescriptions for medical marijuana and set regulations for its distribution and sales.
Studies show that allowing seriously ill or dying patients to use marijuana could have a tremendous health benefit. Researchers generally agree that it can ease pain and suffering from debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer or AIDS, and improve patients' quality of life.
Posted by Melanie Burney @ 2:59 PM
Permalink |
2 comments
Falcon Heene, 6, is carried by his father, Richard, as they emerged from the family's Colorado home Thursday. (DAVID ZALUBOWSKI / Associated Press)
The hoax about a boy carried off in a weather balloon shows what happens to some parents when the fame and cash of “reality” TV beckon.
Much of the nation’s attention was riveted last week by news coverage of the flying-saucer- shaped balloon soaring high above the Colorado landscape. The family of Falcon Heene, 6, told authorities the boy might be aboard the wayward aircraft.
National Guard rescue helicopters were scrambled at a cost of thousands of dollars. Denver International Airport was closed briefly. When the balloon was retrieved without the boy, law enforcement officials searched for his body along the flight path, fearing he had fallen out.
As the nation now knows, little Falcon is safe. He was never on the balloon. A local sheriff now says the episode was a publicity stunt, and that parents Richard and Mayumi Heene face felony criminal charges.
The husband and wife had appeared previously on the Wife Swap reality show, and the sheriff said the balloon stunt was concocted to land another reality TV deal. If so, perhaps the couple should ink a deal about real opportunists who go to a real jail.
If the Heenes were trying to exploit their children for financial gain, they will need to answer in court for it. But the sad truth is that their notoriety still could enhance their marketability someday in the increasingly deceptive world of “reality” TV.
These television shows are all the rage because they’re relatively cheap to produce and they feed the public’s illusion that everyone can be a “star.” But audiences need to start asking themselves more often whether they are being hustled, and whether children are being put through an emotional wringer for the sake of ratings.
For example, what is “real” about a show featuring a young couple struggling to raise eight kids in Pennsylvania (Jon & Kate Plus Eight), while they’re being paid $75,000 per episode? But the recent breakup of the self-absorbed parents is all too real.
These shows wouldn’t exist without the audience demand for them. And so a fellow like Richard Heene — storm chaser, nutty professor, and wanna-be TV star — will even risk putting his family through turmoil stressful enough to cause his son to vomit on live television.
Judgment-impaired parents sometimes make the reprehensible decision to exploit their own children for 15 minutes of fame. But the growing reality-TV market bears some responsibility for encouraging them.
Trucks using Interstate 80 to climb through Western Pennsylvania near DuBois. (PAUL NUSSBAUM / Staff)
A new report that claims tolls would hurt the economy of the I-80 corridor shouldn’t derail Pennsylvania’s effort to win federal approval to do that.
Two years ago, the legislature approved tolling I-80 to help pay for transportation costs. But opponents of the plan recently aired a study that they are using to support their concerns.
The report, produced by an associate economics professor at Grove City College, concluded that tolls would harm businesses in that region, including manufacturers and farms. It also contended that accidents on other roads might increase as drivers use them to avoid the tolls.
State transportation officials should address those concerns in their own economic impact study, which will be completed next month. If there are ways to mitigate potential problems, such as improving alternate roads or adjusting the distances between toll booths, those options certainly should be pursued.
But the objections raised should not become a death knell for tolls on I-80. The plan remains a sensible proposal for raising money for the state’s transportation needs. Without it, state funding for roads, bridges, and mass transit would be cut in half by next July.
Turnpike officials are planning to resubmit their application for tolls on I-80 to the Federal Highway Administration within the next few weeks. The federal agency turned down the bid in September 2008. Among other issues, the FHWA said the state needed to show that toll money from I-80 would be used only for improvements on that highway.
The state’s original plan had been to use some of the toll money for other highway needs, but the proposal certainly didn’t shortchange I-80. It called for spending $250 million per year for 10 years on capital improvements for the interstate. PennDOT currently spends about $60 million per year on I-80.
A lingering objection to tolling I-80 is the mistaken belief that the money would pay for mass transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It’s not true. Act 44 does provide funding for 73 transit agencies around the state, from Centre County to SEPTA. But that money comes from Turnpike tolls, two-thirds of which are collected around Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg.
Rejecting the I-80 toll plan would be a huge setback for transportation statewide. The Turnpike Commission’s payments to PennDOT would be cut from $900 million to $450 million, and contributions for capital improvements would be eliminated.
That scenario would send state legislators scrambling once again to fund the state’s rising transportation demands — in an election year. Given the recently concluded budget fiasco, the prospects of raising new revenue for transportation next year would be dim.
The state’s federal representatives should be working together on behalf of the tolling plan.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 2:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
New Jersey voters should approve a $400 million bond referendum on Nov. 3 to help preserve open space in the densely populated state.
Without a desperately needed infusion of cash, land conservation projects already in progress, as well as new projects to save farmland and historic areas, could be in jeopardy.
The Garden State Preservation Trust has nearly exhausted all of its funding from previous bond measures that allowed New Jersey to protect thousands of acres from development and preserve pristine water supplies.
By authorizing the state to borrow money to buy property, voters can help save what is widely regarded as one of the most successful and largest land preservation programs in the country.
Posted by Inquirer editorial board @ 2:15 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Former Luzerne County judges Michael T. Conahan (left) and Mark A. Ciavarella, leaving court in Scranton after their arraignment last month on racketeering charges.
While the focus of the upstate Pennsylvania cash-for-kids scandal rightly has been on two rogue judges, a legislative oversight panel last week began a review that should make other stakeholders in juvenile-justice and political circles squirm.
Former Luzerne County judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan initially agreed to plead guilty, but a judge rejected the deal. They are now fighting a 48-count federal indictment for taking $2.6 million in bribes.
In return for those payments from the operators of two private prisons, the judges allegedly engaged in misconduct that hearkens back to grim Dickensian times: They packed off hundreds of kids to jail, often after perfunctory hearings at which teens were advised they didn’t need a lawyer.
In the tradition of public corruption going back to Tammany Hall, the former judges could be said to have seen their opportunities and so they “took ’em.”
But what about others key players in the county and statewide who turned a blind eye, ignored red flags, or found themselves powerless to object?
That’s the most important line of inquiry for the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, an 11-member panel formed by state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, Gov. Rendell, and state lawmakers.
Federal prosecutors no doubt will want to track the commission’s inquiry, as well, for any evidence of other wrongdoing.
Headed by Judge John M. Cleland of the state Superior Court, the panel’s charge is to recommend legislative and judicial reforms. As Rendell said, its daunting mission is “finding answers, restoring confidence in our juvenile justice system, and making sure this never happens again.”
Hundreds of children caught up in the scandal have gotten a measure of justice from the Supreme Court, which overturned convictions on constitutional grounds. Hundreds more cases probably should be tossed. A class-action lawsuit by the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, which brought the case to light, is yet another route to right the wrongs.
But confidence in the juvenile justice system won’t be restored without systemic reforms that assure more oversight and fairness in these courts. That has to be a top priority for the state’s high court, since it was slow to act when the alarm was first raised.
Last week, the Cleland commission also heard damning testimony from Luzerne County President Judge Chester B. Muroski about the local legal, political and civic climate that enabled Ciavarella and Conahan to allegedly abuse their court powers to carry out the scheme.
Among his most troubling disclosures was that there was widespread community support for the judges’ supposed get-tough stance — showing the dangers of zero-tolerance attitudes.
Muroski also said county officials didn’t object when kids were redirected to the private jails. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers didn’t speak up enough when juveniles received bad legal advice. Ciavarella apparently wasn’t reported by colleagues for what many regarded as assembly-line hearings. And Muroski contended nepotism provided a “protective shield” when a Conahan relative was paid to do psychological reviews backing detentions.
The panel, lawmakers and courts could look to national models to build in safeguards in juvenile cases, such as Oregon’s program that bars detention for juveniles arrested for first-time, minor offenses. At a minimum, the courts must review oversight of president judges, who wield considerable authority.
The commission will reconvene in Wilkes-Barre early next month to hear from others, including some of the kids who were railroaded. Only by instituting solid, substantial reform measures can officials make some amends for failing to prevent the trampling of those children’s rights.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 1:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
At the Walter Rand Transportation Center in Camden, Gary Nyktas offers information on New Jersey's mail-in voting procedures to Carol Sergeiko. (APRIL SAUL / Staff Photographer).
This year on Election Day, New Jersey voters won’t have to choose between performing their civic duty and staying home to catch the last of the season’s negative campaign ads. They can vote early by mail.
In the spring, the state did away with its absentee ballot restrictions and switched to simple mail-in voting in the hopes of increasing turnout. And voters can test drive that new system just in time for the gubernatorial race.
Applications can be found online, at www.state.nj.us/state, or obtained from county clerks, who send out the official ballots. Those votes will be counted on Election Day, Nov. 3.
When applying, voters can also sign up to participate by mail in future elections. They’ll have three choices. Under option A, they will automatically receive mail-in ballots for all elections in that calendar year. Option B will sign them up for mail-in ballots for all future November elections. Or they can choose Options A and B.
Mail-in voting is new for the East Coast, but has been used successfully in Western states, where more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in advance. In last year’s presidential election, 34 states offered early voting by mail or by opening polls for extra days.
Mail-in ballots have been available since September. Get yours now — and give yourself more time to enjoy that Election Day ad blitz.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 3:00 PM
Permalink |
Post a comment
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine chats with Xavier Diaz, 9, at H.B. Wilson Elementary School in Camden last week. (Sharon Gekoski-Kimmel / Staff Photographer)
As Gov. Corzine nears the end of four tumultuous years in office, polls suggest a majority of New Jersey’s electorate will vote against him on Nov. 3. Such dissatisfaction can’t be dismissed lightly.
But the opposition is split between Republican Christopher J. Christie and independent Chris Daggett, and neither has made a convincing case that he would do a better job in Trenton.
As important, despite Corzine’s flaws, the Democrat’s record shows a capacity to go against the state’s traditional politics and improve its government. Given that record and the weak alternatives, The Inquirer endorses JON CORZINE.
Christie entered the race on the heels of seven years of successful corruption-busting as the state’s U.S. attorney. But over the better part of a year of campaigning, he gave the public astonishingly few reasons to vote for him, and not just against Corzine. By dodging fundamental policy questions, he asked to be exempted from the basic rules of seeking public office.
Much of Christie’s emphasis, which has become sharper in recent weeks, is correct. The state needs to do more to improve its cities and their schools, as well as to end state control of Camden. Trenton must be tougher on public-employee unions, and easier on taxpayers. Ethics laws must be strengthened.
But Christie still relies too heavily on Corzine’s unpopularity while spouting vague promises to cut taxes and spending. And the more Christie is forced to give specific answers to fiscal questions, the more he sounds like Corzine.
That may be part of why Daggett has made such a strong showing. His detailed plan to reduce property taxes — with numbers and everything — filled the vacuum created by Christie’s platitudes.
Daggett would expand the sales tax to more services and goods and use the revenue to reduce property and corporate taxes. Given New Jersey’s outlying position on the national property-tax map, his idea is much closer to what’s needed on the issue than the failed rebate program his opponents have embraced.
Beyond that, though, Daggett’s platform is sketchy. He relies heavily on his status as an independent who can “bring people together” — which sounds good, but could mean almost anything.
So how did “Not Corzine” come to be such a vast constituency? The former Goldman Sachs chief’s unusual background might have suggested he would bring real and needed upheaval to Trenton, but the past four years have not seen that. For a man who rose to the top of Wall Street from humble beginnings on an Illinois farm, Corzine has sometimes seemed timid about shaking up the statehouse. He has also been hindered by a recalcitrant Legislature, a once-in-a-generation economic crisis, and even a car wreck that nearly killed him.
As such, his administration’s victories have been qualified, its progress halting. On finances, the governor took a principled stand for funding pension obligations, only to have to retreat from it amid the downturn. He budgeted cautiously, but then made exceptions under political and economic pressure. He put forward but abandoned a controversial proposal to retire state debt. He won important concessions from state-employee unions, but often seemed too cozy with labor.
Corzine has taken some of the sternest steps in memory to push school and municipal consolidation, while capping property levies. But he has managed only to significantly slow the growth of property taxes, not reduce them.
The governor has also pushed for the nation’s strongest campaign-finance laws. But he has been stymied by an unrepentant Legislature and tarnished by his own generous underwriting of party bosses.
Some of Corzine’s imperfect victories are nevertheless remarkable for a New Jersey governor — and hard to imagine under the state’s usual government by insiders.
The dual-officeholding ban he championed, for instance, is often criticized for excepting current offenders, but it will put an end to a backward practice that was thoroughly entrenched. The governor hasn’t fully realized his school funding formula, but it replaces an unsustainable system of heavily subsidizing a few poor school districts — and undoes bad policies long protected by his fellow liberals.
These are the sort of once unlikely changes that New Jerseyans hoped for in electing Corzine four years ago. They should serve as his model in a second term, if he’s fortunate enough to get that chance.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 5:00 AM
Permalink |
Britt Reid (left) leaves court after pleading guilty in August, 2007.
It was a proud moment for Eagles coach Andy Reid this summer when his son “graduated” from drug-court supervision. But a new study makes a valid argument that guys like Britt Reid shouldn’t be referred to that type of prison-alternative program.
Britt Reid, 24, spent 15 months under supervision of the Montgomery County Drug Court. In 2007, he was arrested after flashing a gun at another motorist. Small amounts of cocaine and marijuana were found in his truck. While free on bail, he failed a sobriety test and Vicodin was found in his car.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers conducted the two-year study that says drug courts too often suck up a community’s drug-treatment funds to use on nonviolent criminals like Britt Reid, who may have their own resources to deal with their addictions.
Meanwhile, other defendants, including men arrested for domestic-violence whose acts are clearly related to their addictions, are denied entry into a drug-court program that would address their drug or alcohol abuse.
“Too often, the criteria and process for admission into drug court is guided by tough-on-crime politics, focusing on first-time or nonviolent offenders, with little consideration of smart-on-crime approaches that target those most in need of treatment,” said the defense lawyers’ report.
It said well-intended prosecutors and judges, typically with little input from the defense bar, often limit drug-court participation to those offenders who are more likely to solve their own abuse problems — while insisting that “harder cases” go to jail, at considerable taxpayer expense.
Noting the tendency to favor “a more privileged socio-economic group,” the report also said that prosecutors too often are reluctant to refer anyone to drug court who might hurt their political careers if he commits more crimes.
The lawyers group has called for an extensive review of the 2,100 drug courts nationally, saying they have been in existence 20 years but have neither stymied the rise in drug abuse or reduced prison costs.
The lawyers also question the ethics of those drug courts that in many cases require defendants to plead guilty to a crime to be eligible for participation. “Drug courts become little more than conviction mills,” said the report. It instead recommends pre-plea, pre-adjudication programs that preserve due-process rights and use the possibility of dropped charges as the lure to get defendants to complete the program.
Pennsylvania has 35 drug courts, but only four allow pre-plea participation. New Jersey has 21 drug courts, none of which are pre-plea programs. The report does cite Philadelphia’s drug court as having fewer ethics and due-process concerns because it was created with significant advice from defense lawyers.
To avoid prosecutors’ reluctance to make drug-court referrals, the report recommends specific admission criteria be drafted by an independent, diverse panel. That’s a good idea. Even better is the proposal that drug abuse be treated as a public health problem to be handled outside the criminal justice system.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 4:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
The Penn campus with a Google camera unit passing through in June. The school "made a decision ... to make a difference in West Philadelphia," said Evan S. Dobelle, who studied urban universities. (MARK STEHLE / Associated Press)
For decades, universities in urban settings built high fences around their campuses to cloister students and employees from crime and blight. But in recent years many universities have begun to literally and figuratively tear down the walls and embrace their neighbors.
Nowhere has that change been more dramatic than at the University of Pennsylvania, which built a public school, a hotel, and offered incentives to its workers to buy homes around its West Philadelphia campus.
Penn also has made an effort to employ local residents and contract with neighborhood businesses. The effort has helped to stabilize the hardscrabble streets around Penn and made the Ivy League university even more attractive.
Penn is not alone in such efforts. Next door, Drexel University has also become more integrated with its neighborhood. Temple University, and Widener and Rutgers in New Jersey are likewise taking steps to reach out to their neighbors.
Indeed, a study released Monday ranked Penn first in the country at improving the economic, cultural, and social lives of their urban communities. Drexel was ranked 10th, and Rutgers University’s Newark campus 23rd.
Temple and Widener were among 75 schools named to the “honor roll.” The study was done by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities, a nonprofit coalition of urban schools.
The effort to improve urban town-gown relations began in the 1990s and has coincided with a surge in the number of students applying to city colleges.
Around the country, many colleges in gritty neighborhoods have taken the lead in
working with their urban neighbors. The schools and their neighbors have seen the benefits of working together. To be sure, there are still flashpoints, but the climate is much different from the heated town-gown tensions that existed in the 1960s and 1970s.
“We can’t teach liberal arts and across the street is an impoverished neighborhood,” said Evan S. Dobelle, who as president of Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., received praise for his efforts to better integrate the liberal arts school with its largely Latino neighborhood.
Penn was recognized mainly for its collaboration with local public schools. Its service learning initiatives and neighborhood development were cited as well.
As the city’s largest private employer, Penn has the ability to be a major force in the city. In return, a thriving Philadelphia benefits the university. That’s what makes for a win-win.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 2:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Speaking of sex scandals (see Richard Aregood column below) The New York Times has a compelling front-page story today about the relationship between a woman and priest, who father her son and later baptized him.
The story details how for years church officials were aware of the priest's relationship and of the child it produced, and yet looked the other way. If anything, the scandal underscores how the Catholic Church would be better served if it let priests and nuns get married rather than carry on such embarrassing charades.
Get it now
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
Partners:
