Supreme Court Limits Where Companies Can Be Sued

There is an interesting article on the Reuters website about how the Supreme Court of the United States has made an important ruling concerning in what states plaintiffs may file injury lawsuits against corporations. The court made an 8-1 decision to put limits on where lawsuits can be filed, which is good news for companies that want to prevent plaintiffs suing them from picking the most advantageous state. More specifically, the case involved out-of-state plaintiffs suing Bristol-Myers Squibb in California although the alleged injuries by the pharmaceutical company did not all occur there and the company is based elsewhere.

The ruling was good news for the Johnson & Johnson company, which is being sued in Missouri state courts despite the corporation being headquartered in New Jersey. Furthermore, a similar ruling by the Supreme Court on May 30th regarding out-of-state plaintiffs suing Texas-based BNSF Railway Co. will likely make corporations more secure that they won’t be sued in states where they are not based. As always, however, plaintiffs retain the right to bring cases against corporations in whatever state they are located. Therefore, the ruling limits the ability of plaintiffs to “shop around,” but it is still very possible to hold corporations liable in court when they are at fault.

The lone dissenting justice was Sonia Sotomayor. Essentially, she feels that the ruling puts too much burden on people who have suffered at the hands of negligent companies. She appears to believe that, because corporations sell products all over the country and not just in the states where they are based, they should be held accountable wherever their products do harm. In the Bristol-Myers Squibb case, the company actually sold nearly one billion dollars of their drug Plavix – the drug alleged to have done harm – in the State of California, so the suit was brought in that state.

Donald Trump Jr. Under Investigation

The New York Times recently reported that the Trump administration had changed their defense against a recent accusation. The Trump legal team had been accused of meddling with Clinton’s effort to become the president of the free world. The recent change of defense agrees that some part of his legal team, his son and top campaign members had met with a well-known lawyer in Russia exactly one year ago. The Russian lawyer goes by the name Natalia Veselnitskaya while the top officials from Trump’s legal team include Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr. Veselnitskaya is a Russian lawyer who had been accused of fighting the Magnitsky Act of the year 2012. This is an act that was meant to blacklist Russians who had been linked or suspected of going against human rights. In reaction to this campaign, Russian President, Vladimir Putin blocked the law and even refused Americans to adopt children from Russia.

However, few people knew about this meeting and only came to light after Jared Kushner decided to get a new security clearance. This came after Jared Kushner was accused by New York Times for refusing to talk about the contacts that he had with Russians before he was invited to work with President Trump. Donald Trump Jr. insisted that the visit to Russia was not based on his father’s campaign. He further insisted that it was focused on adopting Russian children and he had asked both Jared Kushner and Paul to drop by to help him with the issue. As for the New York Times, they reported that the meeting took place because young Trump had promised some damaging information to ruin the presidential bid of his father’s opponent Hilary Clinton. However, Donald Trump’s legal team responded to these accusations terming them as a way of undermining the campaign efforts of their boss.

The team, later on, changed their stand after the Times published another story telling about the meeting. The team said that their boss was not aware of the meeting between his son and the Russian lawyer. Reports said that Veselnitskaya had been hired by a person named as Denis Katyv. Denis, on the other hand, happens to be connected to Pyotr Katsyv who is a senior government official in Russia. Other than this position, Pyotr is connected to Prevezon which is a real estate company from Cyprus. This is a firm that has been under the radar of department of justice for laundering charges.

The Gig Economy is Harmful to Consumers and Workers

Unpredictability in the work place has become harsh reality for many workers. We now have a gig economy, and it is growing rapidly and changing the nature of the employer-employee relationship. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, gigs now comprise 40 percent of these nontraditional jobs.

In a report by, the emergence of the gig economy is the result of changes in the work environment. According to a survey from the Pew Research Center, millennials wanted to focus more on satisfying themselves, having more free time and having more control and flexibility over their work schedules. As a consequence, employers cut back on medical coverage, retirement plans and many other benefits from social safety nets.

The recession from 2007 through 2009 brought another reality problem. Employers began to hire more people as independent contractors to save money. These jobs did not offer vacation days, workers’ compensation, paid sick leave, retirement programs or death benefits for anyone killed on the job. As the unemployed scrambled for jobs, these temporary gigs were often the only jobs available.

The Department of Labor regulates employers to make sure they are in compliance with federal and state labor laws. There are minimum worker safety standards established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These regulations protect workers by defining safe workday time limits, creating mandatory rest breaks and obligatory reporting of accidents. Violations of these regulations will subject employers to serious penalties.

Gig employees are not provided with these same safety protections. There are no limits for hours at work and no mandatory rest breaks. The absence of these controls can subject gig workers to exhaustion and fatigue.

Employers do not like to train gig workers because this could be construed as exercising too much control over them, and they could become reclassified as full-time employees entitled to all benefits. This absence of training can lead to an unsafe work environment.

Employers do not get to decide who is an independent contractor and who is a full-time employee. There are laws and court rulings from cases that define the characteristics of a gig worker.

The case of S.G. Borrello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations established the criteria in 1989 for determining which workers are independent contractors. This case considered who controlled the details of the work, who provided the tools needed for the job, the form of payment and the length of the term of employment. These factors have become the tests applied to gig workers to determine whether the employer is obligated to provide benefits or not.

Sarah Palin’s Lawsuit Against The Times Progresses

The lawyers for the New York Times took an aggressive public stance recently, declaring that they intend to seek an early dismissal of Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against the Times. If this legal maneuver succeeds, it will put an immediate stop to this legal drama. Palin initiated the suit when the Times published an article that explicitly linked Palin with a tragic mass shooting. According to the lawyers representing the newspaper, the Times did not intentionally act with actual malice when it published the editorial. Although pushing for early dismissal is a fairly common move for civil defendants, experts believe that in this case, there is a good chance that the maneuver may have teeth. U.S. law says that in order for Palin to win, a preponderance of evidence must show that the Times acted with malice.

Palin filed this lawsuit in response to the newspaper’s June 14 editorial, which linked a 2011 shooting in Tucson with Palin’s pro-gun stance. According to the editorial, Palin’s political action committee had produced an ad that showed Democratic lawmakers beneath crosshairs. In reality, the ads in question only showed crosshairs superimposed over Democrat-held districts. Experts are divided about whether the alleged defamation represented a deliberate attempt to cause Palin harm. If the court rules that the defamation statue does apply in this case, Palin might win compensatory and punitive damages. Sources report that Palin’s team is seeking at least $75,000 in damages. Few believe that this case will settle out of court under any circumstances.

According to the lawyers defending the Times, the alleged offense was nothing more than a simple mistake that was corrected within 12 hours. Generally, newspapers are not held legally liable for honest mistakes. In this matter, the Times is represented by the law firm of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz. This is a serious firm with a long history of courtroom success. The presiding judge in this case is Southern District Judge J. Rakoff. Most commentators on both sides of the issue agree that Rakoff is an impartial force that should decide the case in a fair, dignified manner. Although defamation suits are fairly common, evidentiary standard for success is quite high for suits such as this. Therefore, most legal experts believe that Palin’s legal team will have a tough time succeeding. In any case, it could take quite some time before this civil legal matter is fully resolved.

Enacting Every Child Succeeds Law Proves Difficult

United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has shocked her critics on the feedback she has given states who have already submitted their plans under the new Every Student Succeeds Act. Unlike the previous No Child Left Behind Act, this new law passed under President Obama allows states to set their own benchmarks.

Power Returned to Locals?

The new law is designed to return most of the power to state boards of education. The law, however, requires each state to submit a plan to the federal government on how they plan to measure success. Each state must also identify the process they will use if a school fails to meet the required goals.

Delaware’s Plan Returned for Revision

One of the first states to submit a plan was Delaware. An assistant secretary with the United States Secretary of Education returned the plan to the state saying that the plan was not ambitious enough. The plan called for up to 25 percent of students to not meet state requirements each year without a school district receiving any punishment.
Another early state to submit was Tennessee where they claimed that all students spoke English. The United States Department of Education recommended that Tennessee rethink their policy because an estimated 50,000 students in the state speak English as a second language.

Betsy DeVos Overzealous According to Some

Yet, another state to submit their plan early was New Mexico. While the United States Department of Education has not given the state any feedback on their plan yet, the acting superintendent of schools says that he sees Betsy DeVos as being overzealous in maintaining control in Washington D.C,

States May Feel Defeated

The Council for Chief State School Officials says that the United States Department of Education has put states in a hard place. Many states had assured educators and parents that the plan they developed would receive approval in Washington D.C. but now that does not seem to be the case. He says he is very concerned that residents in states who had looked forward to local control would feel defeated because of the federal government’s actions.

Gorsuch Shows Conservative Tendencies by Voting 100 Percent with Fellow Conservatives

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its most recent term this week, and it is fair to say Justice Anthony Kennedy is probably not ready to retire. However, it is a reach to say that Kennedy will remain on the bench for the full four years of Trump’s tenure as president, according to In cases where the outcome is divided, Justice Kennedy is often the tie-breaking vote.

However, with each day that passes, it is becoming abundantly clear that the new Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, is a hardline conservative. Some legal experts say that Gorsuch is more conservative than the late Justice Anthony Scalia. The blog states that Gorsuch voted with his conservative counterparts 100 percent of the time. Experts who follow the court say it is unusual for a new justice to immediately show their ideological footprints.

Most new Supreme Court justices are hesitant at first to leave an immediate footprint. Other new justices understood that any ruling the Supreme Court makes is final and understood the lasting implications of their decisions. Unlike past new inductees to the court, Gorsuch has painted a clear picture of how far right he plans to go in both his opinions and his votes.

An example is the modified version of Trump’s travel ban that recently went into effect. If Justice Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch had their way, the full version of the travel ban would have taken effect. Instead, Chief Justice Kennedy and the other five justices comprised on a revised version of the modified travel ban. The compromised version of the travel ban is now in effect.

Another example of Gorsuch’s far right views is an Arkansas law banning same-sex married couples from putting both their names on birth certificates. When the Supreme Court voted to strike down the law, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas dissented.

Despite International Pressure, Virginia Man Executed

Supporters who tried to convince Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, that a man sentenced to die suffered from mental illness failed in their attempts as the convicted double murderer was put to death last Thursday. Governor McAuliffe did not grant clemency to William Morva, a Hungarian national convicted of killing a sheriff’s deputy and a security guard in 2008.

According to, a psychiatrist appointed by the courts diagnosed Morva with a delusional disorder. Supporters who wanted the governor to grant clemency said Morva was not mentally fit when he committed his crimes. The psychiatrist stated that Morva may have been suffering from delusions at the time the murders occurred.

Human rights workers from the UN pleaded with Governor McAuliffe to grant clemency, stating Morva did not receive the “proper accommodations” during trial, and that the courts nor the prosecution did not notify the jury Morva was mentally ill. Although McAuliffe opposes the death penalty, he released a statement saying Morva was given a fair trial and there was substantial evidence presented to the jury regarding Morva’s mental health issues. The governor concluded by saying in the statement that there was not enough evidence to justify overturning the decision of the jury. Dozens of members of Virginia’s General Assembly and three house representatives from the state opposed the execution of Morva.

The death penalty remains a hot topic of conversation nationwide. The governor of Florida, Rick Scott, recently scheduled the execution of a man convicted of murder, which will be state’s first execution in over 18 months. The state had halted the death penalty when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the way Florida handed down death sentences was unconstitutional. A new Florida law took effect in March that only allows judges to sentence defendants to the death penalty if there is unanimous consent by the jury.

Facebook Law passed in Germany

Lawmakers in Germany recently passed a new law that intended to curb the hate speech on social networks. Social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook will pay fines of up to $50 million if they fail to remove hate speech content. The German parliamentary body passed the Network Enforcement Act on Friday. The “Facebook Law” as it is commonly known will go into effect later this year. The law stipulates that these companies would be fined if they failed to remove content that is illegal. This content includes incitements to violence, hate speech, and defamation. The law states that the companies will have to do so within 24 hours. This period extends to one week if the case is more complex to handle. The law sets an initial fine of $5 million. This could increase to fifty million depending on the case.

Supporters of the bill including the Minister of Justice known as Heiko Maas say that the bill is a huge step in curbing the spread of hate speech. Maas said that experience had shown them that large corporations would not take initiatives if political pressure was not applied. He responded to questions about the freedom of expression and said that it ended where criminal law started. Critics and digital rights activists say that the law could infringe on free speech. This is because it could be abused by the government if the content is not pleasing to officials. It also gives technology companies a lot of power in deciding the validity of content on their platforms.

This is not the first time that Germany has asked large technology companies to remove hate speech content. The country entered into a deal with Facebook, Twitter, and Google in 2015. The deal directed the companies to delete this content within 24 hours. This was done to control the anti-migrant sentiment that was developing in the country because of the refugee crisis. The effectiveness of this pact was questioned after a report released earlier this year showed that the companies were not fulfilling their obligations. Social media companies have come under fire from the public and the media to remove terrorist propaganda and fake news. It is expected that the fines will give them more incentive to regulate the content on the platforms. It is important to note that the European Union fined Google for anti-trust policies with regards to shopping results.

A Federal Judge Block’s California’s Gun Control Law

Recently, a judge blocked a new California law dealing with gun control. The law in question banned high-capacity magazines that were capable of containing 10 or more rounds. Back in 2000, California made it illegal to buy or sell equipment of this nature in the state. Under the new law, anyone convicted of possessing a high-capacity magazine can face a maximal charge of $100 and as much as one year in a jail cell. The National Rifle Association (NRA) of San Diego quickly sued to stop the law, claiming it was unconstitutional. This is hardly surprising, since the NRA is one of the most active litigants in the area contesting gun control legislation.

A federal court in San Diego issued a preliminary injunction in favor of NRA. This injunction immediately halted the enforcement of this state law. Although a Sacramento court previously upheld this law, the new ruling will take precedence in the state of California. This is a controversial decision in many ways. Quite a few legal scholars are furiously debating whether or not this was a justified ruling. In time, it will become more clear exactly what fate high-capacity magazines have in California.

In his 66-page ruling, Judge R. Benitez excoriated the gun control law in question. According to Benitez, the new law crosses the line into violating the Second Amendment, the U.S. constitutional amendment granting its citizens gun rights. Of course, California has the option to appeal this ruling. It is possible that this ruling will make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. If that happens, the newly installed Justice Gorsuch may take the spotlight in his new role as a conservative-leaning Supreme Court justice. At the same time, Justice Anthony Kennedy has often played the role of the swing voter in cases such as these. Whatever the final outcome of this case, it may take quite some time before it is fully resolved.

Finding Legal Services Online

The legal industry is going through a lot of change right now with the new technology that is available. Across the country, more people than ever before are starting to see the value in using new technology in order to drive innovation and growth within their respective industry. The legal industry is moving online in a lot of areas. Not only is this good for customers, but it is a way for companies to grow their business as well. Over time, investing in online growth is one of the best things that the legal profession can do. Here are some of the biggest advantages for companies that offer services online.

More Flexibility

One of the biggest advantages in offering online legal services is the flexibility that it provides. There are a lot of people who use legal services online because it is much more convenient than going to visit a lawyer in person. Not only that, but some people are embarrassed about the legal issues that they have and are more comfortable working online with someone.

As a business in this field, you need to work on a way to add more flexibility for your clients. This will allow your company to grow sales and serve more customers within the community.

Better Service

When it comes to offering services online, legal companies are getting better service comments from customers across the board. The young people today want to do business online in any way that they can. With that being said, legal services are a little different than streaming your favorite television show.

Legal companies need to spend an appropriate amount of time scaling up their legal services that they offer online. Over time, they will be able to see all of the different changes that are available to make in order to drive sales and profits in this area.

Future Trends

Overall, the legal industry is changing rapidly for a number of reasons. Not only do customers want more options, but they also want to work on their legal issues on their own time. A lot of legal teams are starting to offer services online in response to this demand from customers. This is a growth area of the industry, and it is vital that current legal teams start to adjust with the market in order to stay relevant and grow.

Failing Mental Health in Alabama’s Prisons

Mental health services in the United States are not as readily available to all Americans as they should be. Low-income people with mental health issues are less likely to visit mental health treatment centers; similarly, people in rural areas are less likely to visit them, too.

It goes without saying, but incarcerated inmates in prison are incredibly underrepresented in both mental and physical health treatment. Most prisons do not allow a number of effective medications to help inmates live better, symptom-free lives, as they are at inflated risks for abuse. The state of Alabama’s prisons have recently been criticized for lacking proper mental health treatment services.

Prisons in the state of Alabama have been accused by a federal court for violating the Eighth Amendment, which states that “. . . cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted.” The court case in reference, titled Braggs v. Dunn, composes 302 pages of evidence detailing the lack of sufficient mental health treatments.

Mr. Jefferson Dunn, the face of Alabama’s prisons, formally holding the title of Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, agreed with plaintiffs that current mental health treatments are lacking. Suicide rates have risen increasingly in the past two calendar years, along with more cases of self-harm and mental health symptoms overall getting worse.

Room in Alabama prisons are also considered inadequate, with 23,328 prisoners housed in September 2016, compared to a maximum holding capacity of 13,318 prisoners. This equates to an approximate occupancy rate of 175%, grossly exceeding the allowable limit. Staffing is also not doing as well as required, with too few counseling staff being available to deal with every prisoner’s mental health issues. Alabama prisons don’t even have enough room to segregate those who have harmed themselves or threatened to do so, resulting in more self-harm incidents than necessary.

Prisoners who threaten self-harm or suicide have been placed in unsafe areas, resulting in more danger to prisoners than necessary. This fact combined with others mentioned herein have collectively contributed to the failing state of Alabama’s prison system.

In order to meet the needs of Alabama’s currently lacking prisons, about $25 million dollars must be expended towards the system to meet legally-mandated requirements, according to Alabama senator Cam Ward.

What you should know about Abortion Law in Northern Ireland

The court of appeal in Belfast, Northern Ireland has made the decision that abortion law should be determined by Stormont Assembly and not the courts. In a recent case, the high court ruled that there was a flaw in the current abortion laws in Northern Ireland. The country’s abortion laws breached the European Convention on Human rights, the court determined. In an explanation that followed, the high court explained that the law didn’t give direction on sexual crimes pregnancies as well as fatal foetal abnormality that would require abortion to save the life of the mother. However, the ruling was later challenged by Northern Ireland attorney general and the country’s justice department. Compared to other countries in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has much stricter laws concerning the issue of abortion.

The court of appeal decision was made by three judges who decided to overturn the lower court’s ruling. They instead found out that the current laws in Northern Ireland were not in line with UK’s Human Rights Act Obligations. Things didn’t end there as the Court mentioned that the case could be heard in the Supreme Court if legal submissions are made on time. In a layman’s language, the ruling determined that the issue of abortion should not be determined by courts or the local governments. Instead, the judges ruled that there are other issues that should be used in determining the case such as religious beliefs and complex moral issues.

After the ruling, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission criticized the decision saying that the court should have done better. To better understand the ruling, it’s good to know what the law says in Northern Ireland. For a woman to be allowed to abort, the pregnancy must be posing serious risks to her life. This could be physical health or mental health. Anyone caught to have breached this law is punished by life imprisonment.

This case had been presented to the court of appeal by the NI Human Rights Commission. The commission had introduced other grounds for abortion that were quashed by the court hence the disappointment. A woman known as Sarah Ewart revealed that she had to travel to England to take care of the fatal foetal abnormality. With this condition, her child would not have survived and yet, the law in Northern Ireland didn’t allow termination. She explicitly said that she had been devastated by the ruling and they would appeal.

Similarities and Differences Between Big Tobacco and Big Pharma’s Opioid Crisis

Opioid painkillers help many people afflicted with chronic pain live near-normal lives. Without opioids, many chronic pain sufferers may not be able to work, care for others, or even perform household chores like washing dishes or sweeping floors. Although prescription opioids have been available in the United States for over one hundred years, opioids have recently made a big splash in the world of litigation. Despite them just now getting deserved attention, poppy plants — the precursors to opioid painkillers and heroin alike — have been used by humans for centuries.

Drugs have been a staple of human history for many years, and are likely to continue being a part of most people’s lives. Coffee, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs, and prescription medications all fit the bill for the aforementioned drugs. In recent United States history, various drugs have caught flak for various reasons.

Alcohol was prohibited about a century ago, then made legal and regulated due to the crime and danger associated with bootleg alcohol. Tobacco makers were sued in the 1990s for pushing unarguably deadly tobacco products to consumers without appropriately representing their risks.

An industry-wide penalty was placed on the United States’ largest tobacco manufacturers in 1998, being forced to pay $250 billion throughout future years. Experts believe class-action lawsuits against opioid painkiller manufacturers, developers, and marketers may appear very soon. Although the tobacco market of the 1990s was much larger than the prescription opioid market of today in the United States, possibilities for suing are very real.

Some attorneys have pointed out glaring differences in the two addiction-forming scenarios. Tobacco companies sold their products directly to consumers, with any United States citizen over the age of 18 with valid identification being able to purchase, and use, tobacco. Prescription opioids, on the other hand, require healthcare professionals to prescribe them. Even opioids have been redirected from prescription holders into the hands of street drug users, effectively finding their ways into mouths, noses, and veins of millions of Americans, pharmaceutical companies are not directly to blame.

With the opioid crisis birthing countless detrimental outcomes by the day, turning many prescription opioid users into heroin addicts, litigation is certain to become actuality in the next few years. The outcome of lawsuits, however, is clearly up for debate.

Only coming years will determine the fate of opioid-producing pharmaceutical giants.

In Illinois, Judge Stops Tax on Sugary Drinks From Going Into Effect

Hours before it would go into effect, an Illinois judge stopped the completion of a Chicago legal effort that would tax drinks with high sugar content.

Citing that the lawsuit filed by vendors must first blow over, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Kubasiak temporarily paused the implementation of the sugary tax. It was meant to begin on Saturday. The lawsuit, which sellers submitted on Tuesday, calls the mandate “unconstitutionally vague” and contends that it will unfairly tax different beverages in different amounts.

Kubasiak said that he believed his choice will safeguard concerns for all sides.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle immediately made a statement that the county would try to undo this ruling and continue to pursue the tax.

The Cook County measure follows in the footsteps of sweetened drink tax laws already in place in Seattle, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Pertaining to soda, sports beverages, and energy drinks, the bill was ratified by the county’s Board of Commissioners in November.

David Ruskin, the lawyer for the Illinois Retailer’s Association, argued that if the tax was implemented and then rescinded, consumers would have no way to get their money back. Ruskin also said that the repercussions would be severe for grocers who refused to adhere to the “unconstitutionally vague” tax.

While acknowledging that the law may be flawed, county lawyer Sisavanh Baker explained that without the tax, Cook County would be deprived of $17 million of potential monthly revenue. In Preckwinkle’s statement, she mentioned that she hoped to address the loss of income with personnel cutbacks, among other ways.

Ruskin also claims that the tax on sugared drinks would leave these businesses out from inclusion with the SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This program assists low-income people in affording groceries.

However, the county’s attorney, James Beligrates, asserts that the lawsuit’s claim about SNAP is misleading because these businesses wouldn’t receive the tax on the SNAP goods.

The two sides will make their arguments at a hearing on July 12th.

Drug Laws Changing

One of the biggest political issues today involving the legal field is around drug laws in the United States. Many people feel like the drug laws in this country are too strict. Millions of people are in jail across the country for buying or selling drugs. However, there are other people who are able to do things much more damaging to society and get out earlier.

Over time, it is vital that this area is looked at by those in the legal field. However, the legal profession as a whole is faced with some big issues. Some states are starting to take matters into their own hands by legalizing certain types of drugs.

Legal Implications

For many states, one of the largest costs in operating their budget is the cost of housing inmates. Many people believe that with less strict drug laws, more money within the state could be devoted to things like education. However, there are other people who believe that this is a great source of spending for the state to keep drug dealers off of the streets.

In certain states, some drugs are only legal in specific situations. These states are seeing a major decrease in crime related to drug offenses and it is saving them money. It will be interesting to see if other people follow suit.

Legalizing Drugs?

There are many people who have concerns about legalizing drugs for a variety of reasons. Drugs have a lot of damaging properties in them. The people who are not in favor of drugs tend to think that people cannot make decisions for themselves. This is a debate that is going to continue in the years ahead across the country.

Unhealthy Lifestyles

One of the biggest issues for many people today is living a lifestyle that is not healthy. Over time, people need to realize that the choices they make are not healthy with the foods they eat. A huge percentage of the population is obese, and it takes immediate action to mitigate any risk in this area to your health.

This is why so many people think it is crazy that drugs are illegal. People are allowed to be overweight, but they are not allowed to do drugs that make them feel better. This is a debate that will not be settled for many years, and the legal profession has a lot of work to do with these changes.

Read More: