Image courtesy of warrantedarrest

A new bill has been introduced to the California legislature in an attempt to legalize marijuana. The bill has already passed through the House Public Safety Committee with a 4-3 vote. It now goes to the Health Committee. If it passes there, it will continue on to the assembly floor. This has, of course, been an incredibly controversial bill.

If passed, the bill would legalize the sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older. According to Tom Ammiano, the state assemblyman who introduced the bill, the taxes from these sales would incur about $1 billion in annual revenue. It would be taxed similarly to alcohol, and would be controlled in much the same way as well.

Opponents to the bill believe that passing it could lead to an unwanted precedent. State Assemblyman Danny Gilmore was quoted as saying, “I think once you start to do this, what are we going to legalize next? Meth or cocaine?” The idea of marijuana being a “gateway drug” seems to affect the perception of this bill as being much the same thing.

Currently, the state of California allows the legal sale and use of medicinal marijuana. In order to obtain this, the user must have a card that enables the purchase. The passage of this bill, however, would open marijuana access up to the general public.

The legalization of marijuana comes with an interesting debate that has raged on for some time now. Even if this bill passes, the debate will likely continue, and the law may be challenged by opposing legislators. Right now, however, marijuana is still illegal and carries penalties if found. Check out this San Jose drug crime lawyer’s article for more information.

I’d like to know what everyone thinks on this issue. If there’s anyone reading from California, what do you think about the bill? Even if you’re not there, weigh in with what you believe. As with many other controversial bills, this one could spread to other states soon after passing in one.

Image courtesy of eigum.

Happy new year to all. There’s been a short hiatus here at Legal News for the holidays, but we should be back in the swing of things. So let’s just dive right in.

On the personal injury front, dog bite cases in Ohio may be seeing a major change in the future. Today, the Ohio Supreme Court decided in a 5-2 ruling to change the way these cases work. Where before, dog bite victims could sue only under the dog bite law, they can now extend the same suit to include charges of general negligence. This greatly increases the amount of damages that can be awarded in these cases.

While this can look like the effect of sue happy people getting their way, you have to look at the other side of the coin as well. This decision comes in the wake of a dog bite case in which a 12 year old girl was mauled by a dog and ended up with head injuries. The damages in the case were capped at $5,000, all of which she was awarded for her medical bills. However, when injured that badly, medical bills are very likely to exceed that amount.

What we have to wonder here is: will the increased charges be used, at least for the most part, for situations like this one, or will this ruling be heavily abused? Obviously there is room for proper use of this ruling, but without the right checks and balances it seems like it could easily be overused.

If you want to know a little more about the subject at hand, check out this Cincinnati dog bite lawyer website. There’s some pretty good information on there about the effects of a dog attack.

I suppose that with the ruling already made, all we have to do is stand by and watch what happens with dog bite cases across Ohio. Give it a few years, and we’ll see how well the ruling works, and, more importantly, how much effort it will take to fix any loopholes. As always, let me know what you think about this in the comments section.

Image courtesy of timesnewsnetwork

On January 11, Prop 8 will return to court in California. The federal lawsuit will be held in the US District Court in San Francisco and could possibly last up to a month. The city of San Francisco will be intervening on the side of gay marriage after several gay rights groups were blocked from it. These groups, however, will be considered “friends of the court” and will have advisory status.

The defendants in the case are not expected to defend Prop 8 because many have expressed agreement that it violated the US Constitution. However, the passing of the proposition amended the California Constitution, making the case a battle of federal vs state law.

On the side of gay marriage, the plaintiffs will argue that Prop 8 violates the due process and equal protection clauses set forth in the US Constitution. They will try to show that the law is discriminatory based on sexual orientation and that it creates a “disfavoured” legal status for those affected. The other side, though not necessarily the defendants set forth in the suit, will likely present and argument based on states’ rights.

Many believe that this case will move on to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and then on to the US Supreme Court before finally coming to an end. If this is the case, a ruling in opposition to Prop 8 could mean an end to all gay marriage bans in the US. Obviously, a great deal is hinged upon this case.

I’m interested to see what will come of this case. Though there are a lot of predictions, there are no guarantees that it will even get beyond this next hearing. If that is the case, I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot more smaller cases on the same subject over the next few years. On the other hand, this could lead to a key victory for gay rights over the next year or two.

For more on current marriage law in California, check out this San Jose family lawyer website. Let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Image courtesy of mstrausz79

Recently, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico introduced a bill that would require ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders nationwide. The bill mirrors that of New Mexico’s already standing law, instituting the same penalty. While it has met with some support, it is also seeing some very early opposition.

New Mexico was the first state to mandate that first time DWI offenders install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles. Several other states have since followed suit. However, Udall is now calling for a federal law on the subject. This could bring up some interesting issues as constitutionality goes and where state and federal laws are and should be concerned.

Most traffic laws are set by the state, region, county, city or town. These are part of states’ rights to set their own laws. However, there are a few federal traffic laws, and there are ways for the federal government to push states into enacting certain traffic laws. This begs the question of whether this bill is the right way to go about getting ignition interlock devices placed in the vehicles of drunk drivers.

The use of these devices seems to work to decrease drunken collisions, and therefore the law seems like a good idea. But should this be a federal law? If the federal government really wanted every state to enact this law, it could do so in much the same way that MADD was able to raise the legal drinking age. Withholding certain funds  from states would help coerce them to pass the law. If every state had this law on the books, there would be no reason for the federal law.

I suppose the main question here is: would the federal government be infringing on states’ rights by passing this bill? That’s something to mull over for a while. If you want some more information about traffic laws pertaining to drunk driving in Texas, check out this Dallas DWI lawyer’s site.

Image courtesy of No On Prop 8.

On December 15, the Washington DC city council voted 11-2 to pass the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009, legalizing same sex marriages. The same vote ensured that religious institutions such as churches, however, would not have to perform those ceremonies. The bill is now awaiting the signature of Mayor Adrian Fenty in order to become a law. After that, Congress will have a 30 day review period during which it can veto the law if the House, Senate and President all agree to overturn it.

Although Mayor Fenty has already said he would sign it into law, and the event of a congressional veto is highly unlikely, some opponents to the bill have still said that they will fight it to the end. The opponents are mostly religious leaders in the area who are adamant about having the bill stopped or the law repealed. However, not all religious leaders are opposed to the bill. One Baptist pastor even said that the passage of the bill was a “cause for rejoicing.” Obviously there is support and opposition on the subject throughout the city.

Having made it this far, it is highly likely that the law will come to fruition. This begs the question, how far will the opposition go to rid the city of said law? Will they stop once the 30 day review period is up, or will they continue from there to try to have the established law repealed? Another very important question is, how much of a win is this law for the gay community? Conversely, how much of a loss is it for the religious opposition?

I’d like to know what everyone thinks about the subject. I’m especially interested in answers to the last two questions and whether you think that one outweighs the other.