By Scott Burris
This is a succinct paragraph from the weekly newsletter of U. Maryland’s Center for Substance Abuse Research. Seems relevant both to the conference on law enforcement and public health I reported on earlier this week, and the election results on marijuana:
There were an estimated 12,408,899 arrests in the United States in 2011, according to data from the national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations—selling, manufacturing, or possessing drugs, followed by larceny-theft and driving under the influence. The majority (82%) of these arrests were for possession and one-half of these drug abuse violations involved marijuana. A poll conducted in 2011 found that one-half of U.S. residents think that marijuana should be legalized (see CESAR FAX, Volume 21, Issue 19).
By Adriana Benedict
As of 2008, the NIH Public Access Policy requires “that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication.” Four years later, approximately 80% of NIH-funded research articles make their way into PubMed Central. Institutional Open Access resolutions such as Harvard’s Open Access Policy have helped accommodate the NIH Public Access Policy requirements, but Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health have yet to adopt it.
In May, the Harvard Library Faculty Advisory Council issued a public letter calling on faculty to promote open access scholarly publishing, noting that “Many large journal publishers have made the scholarly communication environment fiscally unsustainable and academically restrictive”. In a Petrie-Flom Center-sponsored Open Access Week panel (moderated by Open Access Liaisons Scott Lapinski and June Casey), Peter Suber, Amy Brand, Winston Hide and Patrick Taylor discussed the challenges and opportunities for progress towards achieving open access to health research. Highlights from the panel are presented below, and the video should be available on the Petrie-Flom website shortly.
Paul Gowder (Iowa Law) has shared a draft of his new article, Death and Taxes in NFIB v Sebelius. Gowder thoughtfully develops some of the themes that I gestured towards in my “Lopsided Giant” post last week, trying to figure out how the Roberts opinion could uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate as a regulatory tax but not as a regulation of commerce. Drawing on a range of philosophical sources, Gowder tries “to aggressively apply the principle of charity to understand what the opinion actually means by making sense of it.” (I love the ambiguity with the word, ‘making.’)
Gowder is smart in his use of philosophers (from Hayek to Raz, and others) to try to shed some light on Roberts’ ideas about coercion and regulation. Gowder’s analysis makes me think that the Roberts’ opinion might deserve an even broader examination of whether there is a coherent theory of coercion between the individual mandate section and state mandate to expand Medicare section. On the other hand, Gowder reaffirms my sense that the individual mandate’s Commerce Clause problem was not that it was too coercive.
The most provocative question is why the mandate was upheld as a tax. On Gowder’s charitable reading, Roberts’ opinion does not provide Congress with unlimited power to mandate behavior using the tax power. It is strictly limited. But the limitation is merely one of “expressiveness”, depending on whether a mandate “labels those who break it as lawbreakers.” (p16) As I discuss below the fold, this creates a novel rule of Constitutional law — we might call it the finger-wagging-rule. Continue reading
Wasserstein Hall, Classroom 3019
Harvard Law School
In the late 1940s, US and Guatemalan researchers conducted a host of experiments on vulnerable Guatemalan subjects, purposefully exposing them to, and infecting them with a number of STDs without their consent. The experiments were kept hidden for more than half a century, until they were discovered and exposed only recently by historian Susan Reverby. The US government has since apologized for what happened, but a class action suit brought on behalf of the Guatemalan subjects was dismissed in June and efforts to directly compensate the victims have not been forthcoming. Please join Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center and Human Rights Program for a panel discussion of the study and possible legal and political responses that may be available now, both domestically and from an international human rights perspective. Panelists will include:
- Susan Reverby, Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Wellesley College
- I. Glenn Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty Co-Director, Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School
- Holly Fernandez Lynch, Executive Director, Petrie-Flom Center, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School
- Wendy Parmet, George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law
- Fernando Ribeiro Delgado, Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School
This event is free and open to the public. Lunch and refreshments will be served.