danielle-weiler-portfolio-blog - Tumblr blog

danielle-weiler-portfolio-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Academic Sample

Shedding Privacy Rights at the Schoolhouse Gates

Deterring drug use among youth has been a campaign among local, state and federal governments since drug abuse became a nationwide problem in the 1960s and ‘70s. One of the measures that schools began to adopt in order to prevent drug use in the 1990s was drug testing students. The constitutionality of drug testing was challenged by students seeking to protect their privacy interests until it eventually reached the Supreme Court. Ultimately, they would have to decide if the government had a compelling interest in deterring drug use amongst its students and if this was narrowly tailored in order to achieve that interest. Although the court in Board of Education v. Earls approached the issue of drug testing students within the legal framework by adhering to precedent, the ruling ignited political controversy around the country.

Procedures requiring suspicionless drug testing in schools were created in response to the increasing drug problem among youth in the decades preceding litigation on the matter. According to a Gallup poll, 66% of Americans considered marijuana to be a serious problem in the middle and high schools within their area in 1978; 35% said the same when referencing hard drugs (“Decades of Drug Use”). In 1983, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program was instituted in schools. Within the program, uniform police officers would go into schools to warn students about the dangers of drugs and to promote drug-free lives. This program brought the conversation on drug abuse into schools once a week, for approximately 60 minutes (“Why ‘Just say no’ Doesn’t Work”). However, since its implementation, there has been little evidence generated regarding its effectiveness. In fact, a recent study demonstrated that D.A.R.E. had almost no effect on a teen’s peer resistance skills (Ennett). Throughout the 1970s, drug use amongst teens continued to rise.

By the time the mid-80s rolled around, crack cocaine had transformed youth drug use, particularly within inner cities. Crack lured users with its cheap, addictive qualities and it was plentiful in nature. The introduction of crack prompted President Reagan to sign the “National Crusade for a Drug-Free America” anti-drug abuse bill into law on October 27, 1986 (“ReaganFoundation.Org”). Two years later, Nancy Reagan spearheaded a “Just Say No” campaign, creating clubs across the country and throughout the world in an attempt to decrease youth drug use. According to the Reagan Foundation, high-school senior cocaine use reportedly dropped by 1/3rd following this campaign (“Ronald Reagan”). Following this, Congress passed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994. This provided federal grants to educational institutions for drug and violence prevention programs that are “designed ‘to combat illegal alcohol, tobacco and drug use” ("Board of Education v. Earls - Amicus (Merits)"). This is the source of federal funding for drug tests in schools demonstrating how the federal government provided incentives to the schools in order to fulfill their national drug policy agendas. The data on teen drug use in the 1990s is mixed. However, according to a Gallup poll, admitted teen marijuana use plunged from 38% in 1981 to 20% in 1999 ("The '80s and '90s").

The courts became involved in the mid-1980s when school authorities began performing “suspicionless searches” in response to rising teen drug use. The Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) that school officials may search a student’s property if they have an individualized “reasonable suspicion” that a school rule has been broken. Therefore, they do not need probable cause in performing the search. This means a warrant is not necessary to establish the reasonableness of all government searches. This ruling drew the line between a student’s legitimate expectation of privacy and a school’s legitimate expectations for maintaining order (Mersky).

Later cases upheld the constitutionality of drug tests as searches within schools. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1989), the court found that state-compelled collection of urine constitutes a “search” subject to the Fourth Amendment. The court, in this case, sided with the government stating that employers can subject their employees to drug tests if they are involved in an accident while on the clock (“Skinner v. Railway”). This ruling set the tone for drug-testing students to be considered a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, in Todd v. Rush County Schools (1989), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of random drug-testing as a condition for participation in other extracurricular activities. With the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case, the verdict of the court of appeals stood (“Student Drug Testing”). Combined, these cases would be used as justification for suspicionless based drug testing for extracurricular activities in schools.

Perhaps the most influential Supreme Court decision leading up to Board of Education v. Earls occurred in 1995. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton arose when James Acton, a seventh grader in the school district, signed up to play football. When he signed up, he was presented with a consent form that required all student-athletes to be drug tested. When he and his parents refused to sign the consent form, he was denied participation. Acton challenged the district’s policy all the way up to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia issued the opinion. The opinion traced the origin of the drug problem back to the 1980s where “teachers and administrators observed a sharp increase in drugs” ("Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J”).

Initially, the school district turned to education as a solution. They held special classes, speakers and presentations all in an effort to deter drug use. However, the drug problem persisted. After hosting open forums, the district implemented a student-athlete drug testing policy. The District felt that “athletes were leaders of the drug culture”. The athletes were to be tested at the beginning of the season, and randomly throughout. The District argued that student-athletes have minimal legitimate expectations to privacy within the sport. Playing a sport requires them to “suit up” before each practice or game and then shower and change afterward. In school showers, student-athletes already have minimal expectations of privacy. Therefore, the court justified and upheld the District’s policy finding that “the effects of a drug-infested school are visited not just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty” ("Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J”). It is the Vernonia decision that upholds the constitutionality of random drug testing of student athletes because the school has a compelling interest in preventing teenage drug use, placing prevention above privacy.

The facts of Board of Education v. Earls are much like those in Vernonia, except they diverged on the students being drug tested. The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy was adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District in the Fall of 1998. The policy required students in the middle and high schools to consent to drug testing as a requirement to participate in any extracurricular activities, not just student-athletes. The student would be required to submit to random drug testing before participating, during and “must agree to be tested at any time upon reasonable suspicion” ("Board of Education v Earls"). In protest, two Tecumseh High School students challenged the testing and brought suit, arguing that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment. Initially, the District Court granted the School District summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the policy did, in fact, violate the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the school’s compelling interest would have to rely on it demonstrating an “identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those tested”, which the school failed to demonstrate ("Board of Education v Earls”).

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Amicus curiae briefs filed in for both sides, with briefs similar to those in Vernonia. On behalf of the petitioners was Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement on behalf of the United States, a soon-to-be George W. Bush appointee to Solicitor General. Just as the United States had done in Vernonia, Paul Clement argued that drug use was not only a threat to school children but a threat to “the health of the Nation itself” ("Board of Education v. Earls - Amicus (Merits)"). As a whole, the United States believes their general role is to protect children and families from the dangerous effects of drugs. Also filing an amicus curiae for the school district, just as they had done in Vernonia, was Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative public law group. The foundation was backed by U.S. Senators Don Nickles and James Inhofe, both Republican senators from Oklahoma. They were joined by Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, a Republican nominee, and Wes Watkins, a newly-transitioned Republican U.S. Representative. The Foundation did not believe the school should be required to wait for evidence of drug abuse in Tecumseh to institute strong policies to prevent it. Overall, they discussed the tragic consequences of drug use and urged the court to find for the district (“The Oxford Companion”).

In support of the respondents came forth an amicus curiae brief headed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, National Education Association and National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, among others. The rather lengthy brief summarized key points in the respondent's’ arguments. First, the brief asserted that the policy is unreasonable because students in extracurricular activities are far less likely to use alcohol, tobacco or other drugs in comparison to their peers. Sandra Day O’Connor referred to this particular point of the brief during oral arguments. Secondly, they argued that the testing is an unreasonable invasion of student privacy that should not be tolerated. In fact, the “urine collection is itself a significant intrusion”. This invasion of privacy, the brief continued, will likely deter students from participating. The brief concluded by stating that the policy instituted has not proven to deter drug use and the drug-use detection is not a part public schools’ core responsibilities (“Supreme Court”). The briefs presented reflect the controversy of drug testing for extracurricular activities in public schools.

Following the filing of the briefs came oral arguments beginning on March 19, 2002. Oral arguments began with the county, represented by one-shotter attorney Linda M. Meoli. The county’s main objective was to prove that the policy in Tecumseh was relatively the same as that upheld in Vernonia. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg feared the policy engaged in a slippery slope. She argued that this expanded policy would essentially allow schools to drug test students who merely want to take an elective. Additionally, John Paul Stevens was interested in knowing if any sanctions were imposed on the student if he or she fails the test, other than not being able to compete. Meoli quickly answered no, and assured that the purpose of the policy is not to punish students (“Board of Education of Independent”).

The oral arguments then turned to Graham A. Boyd as the attorney for Earls. Boyd is known nationwide for his political efforts to reform drug laws, which is why he was selected to represent the students (“Statement of Graham”). His main argument was that the court should use the individualized reasonable suspicion standard set forth in TLO and not the standard set forth in Vernonia. Justice Kennedy, also worried about the slippery slope, inquired if Boyd would be challenging police dogs and locker searches in schools next. Boyd rejected this argument and contended that he would not do so unless they involved blanket intrusive searches. The question then was brought back to whether or not there was a proven drug problem in schools nationwide. Boyd responded that there may be a nationwide issue, but that the problem has been greatly exaggerated in the amicus briefs filed by the petitioner and by opposing counsel. On that note, the arguments drew to a close.

Three months later on June 27, 2002 the court had reached its decision. The majority opinion is authored by Justice Thomas joined by Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy with Breyer filing a concurring opinion. It is worth noting that it was particularly rare that Justice Thomas wrote the opinion, and, furthermore, that he obtained a majority. However, as such, the majority relied their entire ruling on the precedent established in Vernonia, which seems to be the best avenue they could have taken. First, Thomas evaluated the policy’s reasonableness and utilized the balancing test established in Vernonia. Essentially the court would balance the individual’s right to privacy and the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. The legitimate governmental interests promoted here would be the public school’s role having “a custodial and tutelary responsibility for children” ("Board of Education v Earls"). When weighing the competing interest of individual privacy, the majority found that expectations of privacy in a school setting are limited. Further, the majority found that the testing for drugs is not overly invasive. The state’s role as a custodian requires them to maintain “discipline, health and safety”. This is why school children are required to undergo physical examinations and vaccinations against disease. After applying the test from Vernonia to the facts of this case, the majority found that the compelling government interest outweighed any right to privacy a student may have. Lastly, they asserted that the Court does not require evidence of a drug problem before the government can conduct suspicionless drug testing ("Board of Education v Earls").

In Justice Ginsburg’s fiery dissent, she applies the same balancing test the majority did from Vernonia. The question is whether it is reasonable for the school to conduct drug testing. The remedy is to balance the governmental interests against individuals’ right to privacy. Justice Ginsburg compares the drug problem faced in Vernonia to that in Tecumseh. In Vernonia, the school reported to the federal government that the students involved in interscholastic athletics were “fueled by alcohol and drug abuse”. Furthermore, athletes were singled out to be tested because they were found to be “leaders of the drug culture”. In the years leading up to the policy instituted in Tecumseh, the school reported to the federal government that drugs were not a “major problem” within their schools ("Board of Education v Earls"). This makes the governmental interests even less compelling. In this sense, Justice Ginsburg is arguing that a better approach would be to judge district-by-district. A potential conflict neither the majority nor the dissent commented on was the constitutionality of drug testing all students, regardless of their participation in extracurricular activities, which would rise later on through lower courts. The dissent concludes by applying the balancing test from Vernonia and finding that the legitimate expectations to privacy outweighed the interests presented by the school district.

The heavy reliance on both the majority and the dissent to rely on precedent illustrates that they were approaching the case from a legal perspective. In relying on Vernonia, they sought only to reach decisions within the legal framework and essentially to make good law. On the other side, one could argue that the justices voted ideologically on this matter instead of legally. If one breaks down the justices ideologies compared to their votes they will see that the argument is flawed. The two Democratic appointees on the Rehnquist court at this time were Breyer and Ginsburg. Justice Breyer, although he has a “moderate liberal image” joined the conservatives in the majority (Hensley). The same theory goes for Justice Stevens. Although a “moderate Republican”, he has voted liberally “71 percent of the time”. He joined Justice Ginsburg in the dissent. In this case, Justice Stevens has proven to go against his ideologies in seeking to make good law. Justice O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, additionally joined the dissent with Justice Ginsburg, thereby proving the decision did not rest on ideologies.

With the suspicionless based drug testing of students upheld in Earls, one may wonder the exact impact this has had nationwide on schools. There is research that indicates “currently less than 5% of high schools in the U.S. perform random drug tests on their students” (“Student Drug Testing”). Another study by the Journal of Adolescent Health combats these claims and states that the percentage may be slightly greater. They began studying the impact of Earls by surveying 745 schools nationwide. From 1998-2001, they concluded that 2% of middle school students were subjected to random drug testing. From 2005-2011, this increased to 9% and remained constant. For high school students, 6% were subjected to random drug testing in 1998-2001. This number increased to 11% in 2005 to 2007 and to 14% in 2008-2011 (Ennett). However, one might expect with the prominence of the Earls ruling why these numbers don’t show greater statistical significance. A second survey at Northwestern University explains the reasons why some schools don’t implement drug testing of their students.

The Northwestern University research began by surveying ten schools in one Midwestern county. The survey found that out of the ten schools surveyed, three utilized drug testing. One school began drug testing in 2002 for students who have previous drug violations. The other two began drug testing their student-athletes in 1997, therefore not a result of Earls but more likely of Vernonia. The research they conducted showed that if a principal morally opposed drug testing the students, there would be no such policy implemented. This goes to show how the nature of the ruling on purely legal criteria affected political beliefs on the issue following. With the politics on whether or not principals morally oppose drug testing, there is great discretion in school leadership over whether or not to implement the program. The schools that did not implement drug testing of students stated that there are a variety of barriers to effective implementation. The first is that it is difficult to get support from all members of the community (including students). The second barrier they stated was cost. Another reason it is hard to implement is there are great problems preserving confidentiality and maintaining student trust (Conlon). The study also found that the principals felt there are more useful ways of deterring drug use in their schools. These include random locker searches, random searches by drug-sniffing dogs, systems of rewards for avoiding drugs, referrals to student assistance programs and assemblies or other educational efforts (Conlon).

One reason principals stated they do not drug test their students is because the process is costly. Therefore, even if the ruling had an impact on the politics of drug testing students, there are barriers to its implementation that make the court’s decision almost irrelevant. If the school chooses to conduct the testing themselves and tests approximately half its students (with 1,000 students in the school), the estimated cost is $6,800 per year. The kits themselves are about $10.00 each. If a student tests positive, there will need to be confirmatory tests. Confirming the tests costs $90 each. These procedures incur outside costs as well, such as paying the school staff time to learn about the program, the costs of collecting the samples and doing the tests and of handling students who test positive, along with preserving the students’ privacy. If the school chooses to utilize a third party administrator for the program, they charge about $25.00 per kit. If the school has 1,000 students and 50% of them are randomly tested, the costs can get up to $12,500 per year (“How Much Does”).

With all of these costs to the program, one of the deterring factors may be that it is hard to secure funding. There are a variety of ways schools that do implement the program secure funding. One way is to make the program a routine item to the school’s annual budget. Another is to get federal grant money from the U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools as part of the school’s Title I funds. Other avenues schools may approach are fundraising from individuals or businesses within the community (“How Much Does”). However, these measures are timely for the staff involved.

Another reason schools may not be implementing suspicionless based drug testing of its students is because the drug problem is decreasing nationwide. According to a study at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, there has been a gradual decline among eighth, tenth and twelfth graders across the country reporting use of illicit drugs. Their studies show that youth drug use peaked in the mid-1990s and since then has fallen. The number of 8th graders reporting the use of an illicit drug in the past 12 months before the survey was 24% in 1996 but fell to 13% in 2007. This drop of nearly half illustrates that schools may not be implementing suspicionless based drug testing because the drug problem has significantly decreased. Tenth graders use dropped from 39% to 28% in the same time period, still a statistical change worth mentioning (“Overall, Illicit Drug”).

Many of the conversations surrounding drug testing of students following the ruling of Earls have been to discuss the ineffectiveness and costly measures of drug tests. Some policies in schools nationwide have expanded to include random drug testing all students, regardless of their participation in extracurricular activities. In this way, the ruling has effectively altered discussion on the topic where schools seek to go beyond the ruling. However, given the discretion of the school board and principals on whether or not to implement the policy locally, there seems to be a great deal of politics still surrounding the issue of drug testing students. It seems as if the ruling did not solve all of the issues at stake here, and it will likely take another Supreme Court decision to justify the constitutionality of schools randomly drug testing students across the board for simply being students at the school.

The political discussions on the constitutionality of drug testing students are likely to continue the more schools nationwide implement them. Schools have utilized Earls to go further and expand their drug testing procedures to combat illicit drug use. Although the drug problem nationwide has been proven to be decreasing, this has not stopped schools in implementing programs to deter drug use. The Earls decision revitalized the conversation on drugs and student privacy rights and brought all members of the community in on the discussion. The legal approach taken in Board of Education v. Earls brought forth new de facto concerns that altered the political debate on drug testing students.

0 notes

danielle-weiler-portfolio-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Academic Sample

Protection of Interests Hindered by Ambiguity

Legal jargon and discourse can be disorienting and particularly onerous for someone outside of the legal realm. In fact, it is this same legal jargon that hinders average Americans from fully knowing and understanding their rights. Lawyers, acting in the best interests of the client that they’re representing, are put in place to facilitate this process. However, the ABA guidelines fall short in ensuring that a client’s interests are best represented due to the ambiguity and complexity of informed consent within the legal framework. Although some may see these as sufficient, there are many shortcomings in the current guidelines that need to be addressed.

A source of potential conflict can be noted by referring to the ABA guidelines in regards to the ambiguous concepts of clients; good faith efforts and informed consent. For example, when does one become a client to an attorney? Is it once a consumer has paid for the service of representation and contracted or once a person first seeks legal advice before payment? This may cause “outsiders” of the law to misunderstand attorney’s obligations to clients when they do not understand what even constitutes as a client. Another constraint one can see within the guidelines is that attorneys are to “assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law” (ABA guidelines). So what constitutes a good faith effort? And who decides? There is no definition provided and it does not elaborate on who one should turn to if they do not believe a good faith effort has been made. Furthermore, an outsider of the legal world typically would not know the expected effort that is required by attorneys to determine the validities and applications of the law. It is unreasonable to assume that ordinary citizens will be able to recognize good faith efforts without further elaboration. However, these problems could be easily addressed by providing definitions for each within the guidelines.

Unfortunately, there are some shortcomings of the guidelines that are not so easily fixed. For example, the guidelines do nothing to address the “inherent unfairness if one party has no legal representation and the other does, especially when children are involved” (Rosenblum). Although it would be ideal that each and every attorney exert equal amounts of “good faith efforts” in order to represent each client, this is unrealistic. Public defenders are in high demand and they do not have time to sit on pro bono work for longer than they can afford to. Essentially the public defender will show up at trial, inform the accused of his or her rights. the plea and the possible outcomes. An attorney hired by the client and not the state, however, is likely to put far more effort into the case and become invested in his or her client’s interests since they are being paid a large sum of money to represent them to the best of their ability.

These concerns of “inherent unfairness” have not only been noticed by clients. Justice Executive Director Ellie Krug for United Way notes how judges have “express[ed] concern about assuring fairness in these cases, and their capacity to make ‘fully informed decisions’” (Rosenblum). This idea of a fully informed decision is subjective. A fully informed decision in regards to the law is when a person is suspected or accused of a crime and they cannot give up their legal rights unless they have been fully informed of their rights (“Informed+Consent”). These legal rights include things like remaining silent or having a right to an attorney and are explicitly stated in an arrest classified as a Miranda warning. If a Miranda warning is left out, “any evidence that is derived from that improper custodial interrogation is [...] inadmissible” (“Miranda Warnings…”).

However, the process of being fully informed of one’s rights during an interrogation or arrest isn’t always verbal and can also be a written contract. The way these rights are communicated can misinform or mislead someone about their rights. For example, as dissenting Florida v. Powell, Justice Stevens argued that by the Florida Police department saying “before answering any of our questions” it misleads suspects into thinking that they may not have counsel present at interrogation (Colb). The process of how one becomes “fully informed” and at one point one qualifies as fully informed is left up to dispute. Due to the complexity of the law, a mere addition of a definition would not suffice. With informed consent, there appears to be no starting and stopping point. Therefore an ideal client should be continually and repeatedly informed throughout a trial by their lawyer. Relying on a lawyer’s knowledge and expertise, some allow their fate to rest solely at the hands of an attorney. The extent of knowledge that a client may have of their rights could simply be that the law is too complex to personally interpret and therefore they merely give consent that a lawyer act on their own behalf, remaining uninformed and virtually outside of the decision making process.

Despite this, the guidelines are not entirely useless. A positive is that the guidelines hold attorneys to their client’s decisions. Therefore, even if an attorney thinks it would be in the client’s best interest to go to treatment, for example, and the client refuses, an attorney must respect the client’s wishes (unless court-mandated). Another positive of the guidelines is that an attorney may not be appointed as an endorsement of any viewpoints and the client has the right to limit attorney representation. Despite these assets to the guidelines, these positives do not address the major shortcomings previously addressed and therefore do not serve their purpose sufficiently.

There are a few steps the United States as a whole, and as individuals should take to ensure attorneys hold true to their client’s interests. First of all, there must be a larger allocation of funding towards legal aid and research. This increase in the number of public defenders and resources available to citizens ideally would allow for better quality of representation and legal advice. The research could delve into the process and stipulations of informed consent within the legal realm to finally come up with a decisive subset of guidelines. This new subset of requirements would allow attorneys to better represent their clients because it would provide attorneys to people who previously went without. Something the United States as a whole could do within the public education system is to educate students on their rights. There are still American citizens who do not know or understand their basic rights. Being unaware of one’s rights is an injustice in itself. The public school system should teach children their rights growing up so knowledge of their rights in that country comes as second nature. By placing more of an emphasis on educating citizens about their rights, this will allow for a more efficient encounter with the law (when applicable) and completely alter the dynamics of client and attorney relationships.

If these principles are upheld and the definitions become a new addition, the ABA guidelines would be sufficient. However, without them, as they currently stand they only perpetuate injustice. The quality of legal aid and representation citizens receive should not vary by the weight of the contents in their wallet. Furthermore, the scarcity of resources within the legal realm must be addressed because every person deserves quality representation. As a direct result of the ambiguity and complexity of informed consent, the ABA guidelines fall short in ensuring that a client’s interests are best represented.

“No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding”-Plato

0 notes

danielle-weiler-portfolio-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Cannabis and Cartels: The Effect of Legalization on the Black Market

While the black market for cannabis hasn’t been obliterated-yet-the race to reform the industry is on. 2017 has been a year to reckon with and it is just the beginning. One Congressional legislation effort drawing national attention that targets cannabis reform is the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017. The bill, introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in August of this year, proposes removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I drug.

Proponents of the federal legislation believe that the gray areas across state borders will be clarified. Advocates also believe that federal legalization will significantly combat the black market. Because cannabis can cross state borders, laws conflict and cartels have been able to take advantage of the varying legislation. As such, the black market thrives in areas where marijuana is still criminalized. With taxes climbing in legal states, it is significantly cheaper to skip the dispensary and invest in the black market. A 2016 report estimated that Colorado lost $25 million to the black market (read our article on it here.) With full legalization, marijuana wholesale prices will drop, creating an industry that has a competitive advantage against illegal drug sales.

Addressing the Critics

The critics of cannabis legalization argue that the reforms have caused the black market to soar due to easier accessibility. To put it bluntly, the facts simply don’t support their claim and here’s why:

Due to federal criminalization, the cannabis industry is barred from the support of banks. And banking for a business means everything. Without this advantage, dispensaries are forced to run a cash-only business, unable to “connect with ATMs, credit cards, internet banking or wire transfers.” In effect, the legal cannabis industry operates on the same financial constraints as the black market. They haven’t stood a chance to remain competitive operating as cash-only business with high-hitting taxes.

As a result, medical marijuana cardholders have resorted to selling their own excess from their private grow operations at a nearly tax-free profit. And why wouldn’t they? The cannabis industry has hardly been given a chance due to the financial restraints placed on it by federal legislation, prompting more opportunities for the black market.

Critics also believe the legalization will require additional policing. However, this claim has been unsubstantiated. A study at Cato Institute found that legalization would actually lessen the law enforcement burden by “freeing budgets and manpower to address larger crimes.” Another study conducted by the Drug Policy Alliance states that since legalization in Washington, D.C., arrests have plummeted and has saved millions of dollars. To date, the facts do not uphold the claims of legalization increasing black market operations.

The legal cannabis industry is rolling out new game plans to prove they can keep their promises. The black market will become the greenest market to exist, and it is high time to give it a chance.

#cannabis #cannabislegislation #marijuana #marijuananews #hash #420 #blackmarket

0 notes

danielle-weiler-portfolio-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Legal Consulting Example

Top Marketing Strategies for Personal Injury Lawyers in the Wake of Mass Casualty

In the day and age of mass casualties nationwide, victims and their loved ones are searching for legal restitution. Consequently, the enterprise of Personal Injury law is surging and ascending as a beacon of hope in the wake of these tragedies.

Naturally, the first resource victims employ are internet searches to select an attorney with proven success rates comparable to their particular circumstance. As such, Chief Marketing Officers (CMOS) have found themselves in a marketing battle to stand out amongst their colleagues, particularly smaller practices. Marketing campaigns have historically been centered on convincing victims that, not only do they need a lawyer, they need an attorney who specializes in injuries comparable to theirs.

Fortunately, current industry marketing strategies can serve as foundations to build on supplementary, sophisticated approaches. In the wake of Hurricane Maria’s devastating impact on Puerto Rico, CMOs are testing the waters for the most effective marketing campaigns while remaining empathetic to those affected. One of these methods has been ensuring that attorneys are readily available to victims seeking answers. Following the hurricane, the Wall Street Journal reported “a steady rotation of lawyers from legal-aid organizations and major law firms” volunteering their services in shifts within shelters. Legal-aid organizations have distributed informational material non-stop to those affected as a way of empowering them by making them aware of their options. If there is one thing all lawyers can agree on is that pro bono work is “not only good marketing, but good public relations.”

Pro bono work is also an effective and essential approach on garnering client reviews and testimonials. Potential clients want cold, cemented proof that the attorney has the time and experience to take on their case. Reviews have proven to be tricky to solicit, especially for up-and-coming lawyers taking on a new specialty within a sector of law. This video provides reputable advice on how to generate a steady stream of testimonials from past clientele.

Industry-wide, CMOs have found that the single most determining factor of generating promising leads are referral sources. The American Bar Association (ABA) insists a crucial component to referral sources is actively and relentlessly networking “like you have never networked before.” They urge this can be achieved by attending annual ABA meetings and by networking at local meetings as well as trainings.

Although physicians are commonly a practical referral source within personal injury law, the most useful referral source where there are mass victims are colleagues. This is particularly promising when discussing opportunities with small-practice firms with large caseloads. Chances are, “even if they can't help you directly, someone in their network probably can.” Networking opportunities are also available through organizations such as the American Institute of Legal Counsel and local affiliations, and it is paramount to immerse oneself in these organizations to garner reputable referrals.

Without objection, an internet search for legal services is only as valuable as you make it. Marketing Officers can be experts on project management, but not always on nailing Search Engine Optimization (SEO) on the head. Keywords and phrases evolve with every new major event where personal injury lawyers are in high demand. It is key to remember that “the Google algorithm only knows what you tell it.” SEO has to be meticulous and, as a result, Google Analytics becomes CMOs greatest source of search trends.

With catastrophes affecting hundreds of thousands around the country, Google location services will place any business above the rest when SEO is used correctly. With those affected searching for attorneys specific to their location, firms should be focusing “one page of [their] website per specific neighborhood along with [their] practice area.” In doing so, your service will quickly garner a substantial return on investment (ROI). Keeping up with current events, successful keyword examples to include following this logic could be:

I. Vegas+Personal Injury Lawyer+Shooting II. Nevada+Lawyer+shooting III. Hurricane+Lawyer+Puerto Rico IV. Pro Bono Lawyer+Florida+Hurricane V. Mass Shooting+Lawyer+Death

Of course, as a CMO it is critical to analyze the success rate of these phrases as often as possible to engage a wide array of audiences. Seeking outside consulting or research keyword software may prove beneficial as well, depending on financial capacity.

Keeping SEO in mind, the debate amongst lawyers nationwide continues to be the effectiveness of blogging. Blogging can be a substitute or complement to off-site and seminar networking, but it doesn’t mean it produces equivalent results. A publication by the ABA has found that “the overwhelming downside to blogging seems to be the time commitment.” If it is economically feasible to invest hours on content writers and consultants then it likely would not hurt. However, smaller firms and solo-practioners may experience difficulty in updating blogs weekly with limited resources. It comes to no surprise that more blog posts result in considerably more opportunities for SEO.

In light of that, if it is a goal to create and manage website content consistently, forgetting the audience can be a deadly mistake. The four most important audiences to engage are:

1. Current Clients 2. Prospective Clients 3. Lawyers within your practice area 4. The entire legal community

Keep in mind that marketing campaigns specializing in attracting those affected by mass tragedy must be conscientious of who is reading the article and what they hope to take away from it. Will it be a source of reference for other attorneys? Will it cement the attorney’s place as the “go-to person” for that specific practice? Research the audience to ensure the blog is achieving a monetary purpose.

By implementing and experimenting with the above-mentioned methods, marketing legal aid to victims can be achieved without resulting in a dilapidation of capital.

0 notes