Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter1

Dear Professor,

I hope your fall semester is off to a great start! Welcome to McGraw-Hill’s

September 2015 issue of Proceedings, a newsletter designed specifically with

you, the Business Law educator, in mind. Volume 7, Issue 2 of Proceedings

incorporates “hot topics” in business law, video suggestions, an ethical

dilemma, teaching tips, and a “chapter key” cross-referencing the September

2015 newsletter topics with the various McGraw-Hill business law textbooks.

You will find a wide range of topics/issues in this publication, including:

1. A tuna company’s agreement to pay $6 million in settlement of criminal

charges against the company for a worker’s horrific death;

2. A Wisconsin judge’s decision to try two 13-year-old defendants as

adults in the “Slender Man” attempted murder case;

3. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call to jury duty in

New York;

4. Videos related to a) the enforcement of restrictive covenants in a residential

neighborhood and b) an appeals court’s decision to reject Maricopa County

(Arizona) Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s lawsuit against the Obama Administration

regarding illegal immigration and the enforcement of immigration law;

5. An “ethical dilemma” related to state legalization of marijuana; and

6. “Teaching tips” related to Video 1 (“Family Threatened with Jail Time over

Purple Playground”) and the Ethical Dilemma (“The Next 11 States to

Legalize Marijuana”) of the newsletter.

Have a great fall semester!

Jeffrey D. Penley, J.D.

Catawba Valley Community College

Hickory, North Carolina

Contents

Hot Topics 2

Video Suggestions 9

Ethical Dilemma 12

Teaching Tips 15

Chapter Key 16

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter2

Hot Topics in Business Law

Article 1: “Tuna Company to pay $6M in Worker’s Horrific Death”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tuna-company-bumble-bee-foods-pay-

record-settlement-death-worker-cooked-oven/

According to the article, Jose Melena was loading tons of tuna into industrial

ovens at Bumble Bee Foods when any worker's worst nightmare occurred --

he got trapped inside and the massive pressure cooker was turned on.

Melena's grisly death in a 270-degree oven three years ago led to a $6 million

agreement by Bumble Bee recently to settle criminal charges in what Los

Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey said was the largest payout in a

California workplace-violation death. The sum was four times greater than the

maximum fines the company faced.

"This is the worst circumstances of death I have ever, ever witnessed," said

Deputy District Attorney Hoon Chun, who noted that he had tried more than

40 murder cases over two decades. "I think any person would prefer to be -- if

they had to die some way -- would prefer to be shot or stabbed than to be

slowly cooked in an oven. "

Melena, 62, perished at the seafood company's Santa Fe Springs plant after a

co-worker mistakenly believed he was in the bathroom and loaded six tons of

canned tuna into the oven after he had stepped inside.

The company did not have safety procedures that would have required the

equipment be turned off with an employee inside or provide an escape route

or a spotter to keep watch with a worker in a confined space, Hoon said.

In a rare prosecution of a workplace fatality, Bumble Bee, its plant Operations

Director Angel Rodriguez and former safety manager Saul Florez were each

charged with three counts of violating Occupational Safety & Health

Administration rules that caused a death.

Each party reached a different plea agreement in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Bumble Bee agreed to plead guilty in January 2017 to a misdemeanor of

having willfully failed to provide an effective safety program. First, however,

it must complete several safety measures that include spending $3 million to

upgrade ovens so workers can't get trapped inside and providing worker

training.

Of Special Interest

This section of the newsletter covers three

(3) topics:

1) A tuna company’s

agreement to pay $6

million in settlement of criminal charges against

the company for a worker’s horrific death;

2) A Wisconsin judge’s decision to try two 13-

year-old defendants as

adults in the “Slender Man” attempted murder

case; and

3) Republican

presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call to

jury duty in New York.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter3

Florez, 42, of Whittier was sentenced to three years of probation and will face fines and penalties of

about $19,000 after pleading guilty to a single felony count of violating a workplace safety rule that

caused a death.

Rodriguez, 63, of Riverside, agreed to plead guilty in 18 months to a misdemeanor and pay about

$11,000 after he completes 320 hours of community service and worker safety courses.

The two men had faced up to three years in prison and fines up to $250,000. The company had faced

fines up to $1.5 million.

Melena's family will receive $1.5 million under the settlement. It does not prevent them from also

suing the company or receiving workers' compensation funds, Hoon said.

"Certainly, nothing will bring back our dad, and our mom will not have her husband back, but much

can be done to ensure this terrible accident does not happen again," the family said in a statement.

Melena, 62, had been loading pallets of canned tuna into 35-foot-long ovens at the company's Santa

Fe Springs plant before dawn Oct. 11, 2012.

When a supervisor noticed him missing, an announcement was made on the intercom and employees

searched for him in the facility and parking lot, according to a report by the California Division of

Occupational Safety and Health.

His body was found two hours later after the pressure cooker was turned off, cooled and opened.

The San Diego-based company is appealing $74,000 in fines by the state's occupational safety

agency for failing to properly assess employee danger.

"We will never forget the unfathomable loss of our colleague Jose Melena and we are committed to

ensuring that employee safety remains a top priority at all our facilities," the company said in a

statement.

Workplace violation prosecutions are fairly uncommon -- even after deaths. Of 189 fatality

investigations opened by the state in 2013, only 29 were referred to prosecutors and charges were

only filed in 14 cases that year, according to state records.

Discussion Questions

1. Why is this a criminal case? Is this not just a tort case or a worker’s compensation case? Explain

your response.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter4

It is a criminal case based on the prosecution’s belief that Bumble Bee Foods’ failure to implement

safety standards to avoid a worker being trapped in the company’s oven rose to the level of criminal,

not merely civil, negligence. A civil wrong represents a wrong against an individual, while a

criminal wrong represents a wrong against society as a whole.

2. As the article indicates, Melena's family will receive $1.5 million under the criminal settlement,

and the criminal settlement does not prevent them from also suing the company or receiving

workers' compensation funds. If the family does sue in civil court and recover money damages,

would that constitute “double recovery?” Explain your response.

It would not constitute double recovery for the family to receive $1.5 million in criminal settlement

proceeds and recover money damages in a civil action. A criminal action is distinguishable from a

civil action—in a criminal action, the prosecution brings an action on behalf of the government,

while in a civil action, the plaintiff brings an action for individual harm caused by the defendant. In

criminal court, the judge, prosecution and defense determine how criminal settlement proceeds will

be distributed. If some or all of the criminal settlement proceeds are distributed to the victim (or the

victim’s family), that does not prohibit the victim (or the victim’s family) from suing in civil court to

recover damages for the personal harm.

3. In your reasoned opinion, is the $6 million settlement excessive? Why or why not?

This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. Do remind students that a criminal

settlement represents the mutual willingness of the prosecution and the defense to resolve the case,

with judicial review of whether the settlement terms are fair and reasonable under the

circumstances. Bumble Bee Foods voluntarily and willingly settled this case, regardless of whether it

was motivated to avoid further media attention and the negative repercussions of such notoriety, or

whether the company believed such a settlement was the “right thing to do.”

Article 2: “Two 13-Year-Old Girls Are Being Tried As Adults. Here's Why That Matters.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/slenderman-youth-adults-prison-

wisconsin_55cbc70ce4b0cacb8d32ee35?cps=gravity_2687_1138476008340655834&kvcommref

=mostpopular

According to the article, a Wisconsin judge recently ruled that the two 13-year-old girls accused of

attempting to murder a classmate to impress fictional Internet character Slender Man will be tried as

adults.

The teens face dramatically different treatment because of the judge's decision. Children tried as

adults face longer sentences and fewer resources while incarcerated, and they are more likely to be

assaulted in adult prisons than juvenile facilities.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter5

If convicted in juvenile court, the 13-year-olds would have faced detention until the age of 18,

followed by intense supervision and services when released back into their communities. In adult

court, they face up to 65 years in prison. They may also be sentenced to a combination of prison and

extended supervision under the Department of Corrections.

In Wisconsin, any juvenile over 10 years old charged with homicide or attempted homicide is

automatically tried in adult court, but defense lawyers may request a trial in juvenile court for youth

under 16. Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Bohren said recently that defense lawyers "failed

to convince him" the cases should be moved.

Lighter sentences in juvenile court are an acknowledgement of adolescents' changing brains and

bodies, according to Mishi Faruqee, a juvenile justice policy strategist at the American Civil

Liberties Union.

“The recognition is that when they're 18 or when they're 21 they can really be different people,”

Faruqee said. “The juvenile justice system can still hold young people accountable for their actions.”

Bohren decided to keep the girls in adult court because he was worried the girls would not receive

proper mental health treatment or supervision upon their release, according to reports. A longer

sentence would “protect people longer,” he said.

There's a tradeoff, though: Adult prisons are not designed with kids in mind.

In Wisconsin, youth in juvenile facilities have access to a wide array of resources and workshops.

The Division of Juvenile Corrections of Wisconsin has offerings including dialectical behavior

therapy, which helps juveniles learn mindfulness, distress tolerance and emotion regulation;

education; family services, including bus services for families and therapy; a foster grandparent

program as mentorship; a juvenile cognitive intervention program, focusing on cognitive

restructuring in adolescents; and a victim impact program, which emphasizes the rights of victims

and identifies the harmful effects of crime.

Adult facilities offer some overlapping resources, but are targeted at older populations. Most

offerings are for technical education training. Treatment offerings are for things like anger

management and cognitive intervention, but many of the violence programs cater only to men.

Additionally, not all programs are available in all of the state’s 38 facilities. By contrast, there are

two formal holding facilities in the state for juveniles, one for boys and another for girls, plus an

alternative academy for boys. Almost all juvenile programs are offered at both the boys’ and girls’

facilities.

Holding youth in adult facilities is not a new practice, but it recently has been gaining more national

attention.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter6

Last month, the media reported about the lives of youth in the adult prison system, some of whom

had experienced abuse and almost all of whom had contemplated suicide. Staff in juvenile facilities

are “more likely to be trained to deal with teens,” she wrote, and minors in adult prisons are more

likely to attempt suicide than their counterparts in juvenile detention. And after they are released,

those who serve in the adult system are “77 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent felony

than those who were sent to juvenile institutions.”

Youth are also five times more likely to experience sexual assault in adult prisons versus juvenile

facilities, according to the Equal Justice Initiative.

Poet and filmmaker James Burns spent time in both juvenile and adult facilities as a minor. Since

turning his life around, he’s become an advocate for those inside the system. He recently spoke about

what he views as the starkest differences in the two systems.

“In the adult system, there is no rehabilitation,” Burns said. “I know there are some programs that

exist, but those programs are very limited. Oftentimes people come into the adult system and they

come out with more problems than they had before they went in. … The juvenile system, while it is

still broken in many ways, still offers more support than what an adult facility has. They're more

geared towards treating juveniles.”

The two Waukesha girls are accused of stabbing a fellow classmate with the intent of murdering her.

The girls allegedly planned the deed as a tribute to the fictional Slender Man, a paranormal creature

who has supposedly been in existence for centuries. He is “rumored to kill children exclusively,”

according to Creepypasta Wiki, a website that collects information on creepy Internet memes. The

girls discovered Slender Man on the site and decided to kill their friend to show devotion to the

figure.

Despite being stabbed 19 times, the victim managed to crawl out of the woods where she had been

abandoned. She was taken to a hospital and survived.

Discussion Questions

1. As the article indicates, in Wisconsin, any juvenile over 10 years old charged with homicide or

attempted homicide is automatically tried in adult court, but defense lawyers may request a trial

in juvenile court for youth under 16. In your reasoned opinion, is this Wisconsin law sound? Why

or why not?

This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. Wisconsin’s law reflects a longstanding

nationwide trend to try juvenile offenders as adults, based on the assumption that even at a young

age, offenders still have the capacity to distinguish right from wrong and formulate criminal intent.

This nationwide trend is consistent with prevailing public sentiment that offenders (even young ones)

should be held criminally responsible for their wrongdoing.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter7

2. As the article indicates, defense lawyers may request a trial in juvenile court for defendants under

the age of 16. If you were a criminal court judge, would you readily transfer such cases to

juvenile court? Why or why not?

This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. Students should know that there is

tremendous pressure on judges, many of whom are subject to the political (i.e., election) process, to

be “tough on crime.” If a judge refuses to try a youthful offender as an adult, he could be portrayed

as “light on crime” by his opponent in the next election cycle.

3. According to the article, poet and filmmaker James Burns, who spent time in both juvenile and

adult facilities as a minor, claims that “(i)n the adult (criminal justice) system, there is no

rehabilitation.” Do you agree or disagree? Explain your response.

Obviously, the adult criminal justice system is filled with convicted criminals. Being surrounded by

convicted offenders in prison creates a “culture of crime.” For those who favor juvenile court and

trying youthful offenders in the juvenile court system, the hope is that by not subjecting young people

to the regular prison population, they will be less likely to become “hardened criminals,” and more

likely to be rehabilitated.

Article 3: “Donald Trump Has Jury Duty”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-has-jury-duty

According to the article, even presidential candidates get called for jury duty.

Donald Trump will join his fellow New Yorkers in reporting for jury duty in Manhattan, his

campaign confirmed. The billionaire real estate mogul, who was holding a rally in New Hampshire

recently before heading to the Iowa State Fair, is currently leading in national polls among the 17

Republican presidential contenders.

“Yeah, I’ll be doing jury duty, can you believe it?” Trump said recently at the New Hampshire

campaign event. “I’m looking forward to it. I think it’s fun.”

Trump is in good company: Recently, former President George W. Bush reported for jury duty in

Texas, although he wasn’t picked to serve. Florida Senator Marco Rubio was also summoned in

2014, although he too was not selected for a case.

Periodic jury duty is compulsory in the United States for all citizens, with few exceptions. Still, that

hasn’t stopped Trump in the past: According to media reports, Trump has ignored multiple jury

summons over the last nine years. When he failed to show up at a March 6 hearing for “failure to

respond to summons for petit jury service” five times since 2006, Supreme Court Justice Tanya

Kennedy slapped the billionaire with a $250 fine.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter8

“Any assertion that Mr. Trump doesn’t take his civic responsibilities seriously is absolutely false and

only being used as an attempt to discredit his stellar reputation,” said Trump’s lawyer, Michael

Cohen. “Mr. Trump has not received any of the notices. Had he, he would have complied.”

Discussion Questions

1. Describe the jury selection procedure.

The Sixth and the Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to a jury

trial in both civil and criminal cases. This means that a pool of jurors must be convened in order to

satisfy the constitutional right to trial by jury. From tax, voting, and driver’s license records (as well

as from other sources), state and federal court systems call to civic service members of the

community to potentially serve on a jury.

Actual jury service (i.e., participating on a civil or criminal court jury) depends on the jury selection

process. In what is known as “voir dire,” attorneys for both the plaintiff/prosecution and the

defendant are allowed to question prospective jurors to determine who is “fit to serve” on the jury. If

an attorney is not pleased with a prospective juror, he or she may generally excuse the prospective

juror through the use of a “peremptory challenge.” Strategically, through jury selection, the

attorney for the plaintiff/prosecution attempts to select jurors that will likely favor the

plaintiff/prosecution, while the defense attorney attempts to do the same for his or her client. Many

legal experts believe that a case is either won or lost through the jury selection process, since it is

the jury that ultimate decides the case.

2. In your reasoned opinion, should periodic jury duty be compulsory for all United States citizens?

Why or why not?

Although student opinions may vary in response to this question, periodic jury duty is essential to the

constitutional guarantee of trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases.

3. If you were an attorney participating in the jury selection process, would you allow Donald

Trump to remain on the jury? Why or why not?

This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. One’s political views can obviously

influence the response to this question. The ultimate questions here are a) whether Mr. Trump could

render a fair and impartial verdict, based on a careful determination of the facts and a clinical

application of the law to the facts; and b) whether a just trial could be realized in spite of Mr.

Trump’s notoriety. Celebrities are often excused from jury service for fear that their fame will result

in a “media circus,” thereby reducing the possibility that a fair trial could be realized.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter9

Video Suggestions

Video 1: “Family Threatened with Jail Time over Purple Playground”

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4421186391001/family-threatened-with-jail-

time-over-purple-playground/?#sp=show-clips

Discussion Questions

1. This video segment is entitled “Regulation Nation.” Is this a case of

government overregulation? Explain your response.

No, this is not a case of government overregulation. The regulation at issue is

one imposed by neighborhood restrictive covenants, enforced by the

neighborhood’s Homeowner’s Association. This is a form of “self-policing”

by the members of the community—Restrictive covenants, and their

enforcement, are designed to maintain the overall appearance of a

community and thereby preserve and promote property values, and to

advance the overall quality of life for those who live within the community.

2. The video claims that the Lee’s Summit, Missouri family is being

threatened with “jail time.” Who is threatening them with jail time? If it is the

Homeowner’s Association, would that organization have the authority to

impose jail time for the family’s failure to comply with the neighborhood’s

restrictive covenants?

The video does not address the details of the purportedly threatened jail time.

If a case like this is litigated, a judge would likely enforce the neighborhood’s

restrictive covenants (based upon the notion that restrictive covenants

represent “self-regulation” by a community in order to maintain the overall

appearance of the community, and thereby preserve and promote property

values). Such enforcement could come in the form of a court order to comply

with the pertinent restrictive covenant, and if the subject property owner

refused to comply with the court order, that could constitute contempt of

court (technically, a crime). Whether a judge or a prosecutor would choose to

pursue punishment in the form of jail time in a case like this is highly

unlikely; it is much more likely that a fine for violation of the court order

would be imposed.

3. What is the purpose of a homeowner’s association? What is the purpose of

restrictive covenants?

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter10

The purpose of a homeowner’s association is to promote the interests of all homeowners living in the

community the association has the authority to regulate (such authority is granted by the property

owners within the community). As mentioned in response to Video 1, Discussion Question Number 1

above, the purpose of restrictive covenants is to maintain the overall appearance of a community and

thereby preserve and promote property values, and to advance the overall quality of life for those

who live within the community.

Video 2: “Court Rejects Arpaio’s Lawsuit Against Obama Administration”

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4422271430001/court-rejects-arpaios-lawsuit-against-obama-

administration/?playlist_id=930909826001#sp=show-clips

Discussion Questions

1. Who should have the power to establish and enforce immigration law: the federal government, or

the individual states? Explain your response.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution gives the United States Congress the

power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This constitutional provision clearly

establishes that the federal government is responsible for formulating and enforcing laws that

determine how non-citizens can become naturalized citizens of the United States. Over the history of

the United States, however, both the federal and state governments (especially those in “border”

states) have exercised authority over immigration, particularly in terms of controlling illegal

immigration. A constitutional struggle can ensue when the federal government and state/local

governments disagree about how to address problems (actual and/or perceived) associated with

immigration, such as how to address illegal immigration.

2. What is the strongest argument for allowing Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio

local control in addressing illegal immigration? What is the strongest argument for not allowing

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio local control in addressing illegal immigration?

The strongest argument for allowing Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio local control

in addressing illegal immigration is that his jurisdiction (Maricopa County) is directly affected by

the problems associated with illegal immigration, since it is located in a state (Arizona) that borders

Mexico. Associated with that argument would be the contention that the federal government is not

doing enough to “stem the tide” of illegal immigration—If the federal government neglects to

exercise its authority, such authority “defaults” to the state(s).

The strongest argument for not allowing Sheriff Arpaio local control in addressing illegal

immigration is that pragmatically, the United States of America must have a uniform (federal)

approach to immigration—Without such a uniform approach, a chaotic, “patchwork” scheme would

result, with state and local governments varying widely in terms of how to address immigration. A

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter11

proponent of this argument would likely argue that our nation’s Founding Fathers realized this, as

evidenced by their delegation of constitutional authority to the federal government to “establish a

uniform rule of Naturalization.”

3. On what specific legal grounds did the appellate court reject Sheriff Arpaio’s lawsuit against the

Obama Administration?

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed Sheriff Arpaoi’s lawsuit

against the Obama Administration based on the belief that the sheriff lacked legal “standing” to sue.

Legal standing refers to the plaintiff’s ability to establish, to the satisfaction of the court, that he or

she has a legal interest that has been directly violated/compromised by the defendant. In this case,

the court of appeals concluded that Sheriff Arpaio had not sufficiently established that his office had

been adversely impacted by the Obama Administration’s policies and practices related to

immigration. According to Sheriff Arpaio, he will appeal the court of appeals’ decision to the United

States Supreme Court.

For further information regarding the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia, please refer to the following internet address:

“Appeals Court Drops Joe Arpaio Immigration Case”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/14/politics/judge-dismisses-joe-arpaio-immigration-case/

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter12

Ethical Dilemma

“The Next 11 States to Legalize Marijuana”

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/08/12/the-next-11-states-to-

legalize-marijuana/

According to the article, marijuana prohibition is entering its 78th year.

Colorado’s marijuana law went into effect at the beginning of last year in the

wake of changing attitudes. Compared to 1969, when only 12% supported

legalizing pot, today a majority of Americans support legalizing recreational

use of the drug.

It is legal to purchase marijuana in four states — Alaska, Colorado, Oregon,

and Washington — as well as in the District of Columbia. Prior to the

legalization, all of these states had already reduced the penalties for

possession and use of small amounts of the drug or introduced policies

permitting medical marijuana use. To identify the states most likely to

legalize marijuana next, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 11 states where by law

residents in possession of small amounts of the drug are not punishable by jail

time, and medical marijuana use is permitted.

A large share of U.S. states, including all 11 on this list, has decriminalized

marijuana at some point. The widely-referenced, but confusing term actually

means a different thing depending on where it is being used. Not to be

confused with legalization, states that have decriminalized marijuana have in

some way reduced the penalties for those caught with the substance. In most

cases, this means the state will no longer prosecute or jail those caught with

small amounts of the drug for personal use. In some cases, getting caught

with a few grams of marijuana is as serious as a traffic infraction.

Other states that have decriminalized, however, still have relatively harsh

penalties for possession. In Nevada, for example, the state no longer can

assign jail time for those caught with a small amount of the drug, but violators

can still be arrested, fined heavily, and charged with a misdemeanor.

Various moral and practical arguments have helped to catalyze the growing

trend of legalization and decriminalization of marijuana. The potential tax

revenue, job creation, and reduction of the burden of offenders on state prison

systems, for example, have likely been a motivating factor behind the bills to

regulate and legalize the drug in many of the states on our list. In an

interview, Allen St. Pierre, executive director at the National Organization for

Of Special

Interest

This section of the newsletter

addresses state

legalization of

marijuana.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter13

the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), argued that legalizing marijuana “would generate revenue

where we now hemorrhage out billions and billions of dollars.”

However, according to Morgan Fox, communications manager at the Marijuana Policy Project, the

most significant force in getting bills and referendums on the table is public support within the states.

In most of the 11 states that may soon legalize marijuana, recent polls have been conducted showing

a majority of residents support some form of legalization. In Connecticut, 63% of those surveyed in a

March 2015 Quinnipiac University poll said they were in favor of legalizing possession of small

amounts of marijuana for adults.

St. Pierre argued that the current prohibition laws are inconsistent. “If alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and

pharmaceutical products can be legally sold to adults in this country, it’s hard to understand the

constitutional economic or for that matter moral arguments put forward on why marijuana can’t be

within that same ambit of choices for adults.”

One factor that may be driving high public support for legalization in these states is the high number

of users. Of the 11 states that appear next in line to legalize marijuana, nine surpass the nationwide

rate of marijuana users. In 2012 and 2013, an estimated average of 12.3% of Americans 12 and older

smoked marijuana. In Rhode Island, more than 20% had.

St. Pierre also noted that the marijuana legalization issue is unique in that Americans’ political

persuasions favor legalization of marijuana. Support for reform can be found among liberals, but also

among conservatives, particularly those with libertarian-leaning beliefs. “It’s hard to make an

argument against legalization in a free-market society such as ours,” said St. Pierre.

Still, according to Gallup, less than one-third of conservative Americans think cannabis should be

legalized, in contrast with overwhelmingly strong support from liberals and a strong majority of

moderates. Nearly all of the next states expected to legalize marijuana are liberal-leaning states.

To identify the next states to legalize marijuana, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed states where possession of

small amounts of marijuana is not punishable by jail and also where medical marijuana is currently

legal based on data from The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). We also considered marijuana-related

arrests per 100,000 residents through 2012 provided by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. In

addition, we considered the estimated proportion of residents 12 and older who had used marijuana

some time in the past year, based on annualized data from 2012 and 2013, from the Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration. Public opinion polls were provided by the Marijuana

Policy Project based on the most recent available survey. All data on current enforcement policies

and penalties were provided by NORML.

These are the states where marijuana is most likely to be legalized.

1. Massachusetts;

2. Nevada;

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter14

3. California;

4. New York;

5. Vermont;

6. Minnesota;

7. Connecticut;

8. Maryland;

9. Rhode Island;

10. Maine; and

11. Delaware.

Discussion Questions

1. From an ethical perspective, does the potential for increased tax revenue justify the legalization

of marijuana? Why or why not?

The determination of whether an act is ethical or unethical depends largely on a) the decision-

maker’s personal code of ethics; and b) the code of ethics established by a collective body (for

example, a company, or society as a whole). In your author’s opinion, the legalization of marijuana

should be based on the larger question of whether the use of marijuana is ethical or unethical, not

whether it will increase tax revenue. With that being said, increased tax revenue could be a

persuasive reason for marijuana legalization.

2. From an ethical perspective, does the potential for job creation justify the legalization of

marijuana? Why or why not?

As indicated in response to Ethical Dilemma Discussion Question 1 above, the determination of

whether an act is ethical or unethical depends largely on a) the decision-maker’s personal code of

ethics; and b) the code of ethics established by a collective body (for example, a company, or society

as a whole). In your author’s opinion, the legalization of marijuana should be based on the larger

question of whether the use of marijuana is ethical or unethical, not whether it will create jobs. With

that being said, job creation could be a persuasive reason for marijuana legalization.

3. From an ethical perspective, does public support for marijuana legalization justify a change in the

law? Why or why not?

As indicated in response to Ethical Dilemma Discussion Questions 1 and 2 above, the determination

of whether an act is ethical or unethical depends largely on a) the decision-maker’s personal code of

ethics; and b) the code of ethics established by a collective body (for example, a company, or society

as a whole). In your author’s opinion, the legalization of marijuana should be based on the larger

question of whether the use of marijuana is ethical or unethical, not whether there is public support

for marijuana legalization. With that being said, it is difficult for politicians to ignore prevailing

public sentiment—Acknowledgment of public opinion, and fulfillment of the will of the people, often

makes the difference in terms of election outcomes.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter15

Teaching Tips

Teaching Tip 1 (Related to Video 1): “Who is Responsible for U.S.

Immigration Policy?”

For an excellent article regarding government authority for the creation and

enforcement of immigration law, please see the following internet address:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/

spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html

(The article is written by Jennifer Chacon, a professor of law at the University

of California-Irvine School of Law):

Teaching Tip 2 (Related to Ethical Dilemma): “State Marijuana Laws

Map””

For an informative map identifying the status of marijuana law (medical

marijuana legalized, marijuana legalized for recreational use, no laws

legalizing marijuana) in all fifty states, please see the following internet

address:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-

recreational.html

O

For more information,

please contact your

sales rep!

http://catalogs.mhh

e.com/mhhe/findRe

p.do

Of Special Interest

This section of the newsletter will assist you

in addressing Video 1 (“Family Threatened with

Jail Time over Purple

Playground”) and the Ethical Dile mma (“The

Next 11 States to Legalize

Marijuana”) of the newsletter.

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter16

Chapter Key for McGraw-Hill/Irwin Business Law Texts:

Hot Topics Video

Suggestions

Ethical

Dilemma

Teaching Tips

Barnes et al., Law for Business

Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7

and 25

Chapters 4, 5

and 34

Chapters 3 and 5 Chapters 4 and 5

Bennett-Alexander &

Hartman, Employment Law for

Business

Chapter 13 N/A N/A N/A

Bennett-Alexander & Harrison,

The Legal, Ethical, and

Regulatory Environment of Business in a Diverse Society

Chapters 3, 6, 8

and 11

Chapters 1, 7

and 8

Chapters 1 and 8 Chapters 1 and 8

Brown et al., Business Law with UCC Applications

Chapters 3, 5, 6 and 23

Chapters 2, 5 and 30

Chapters 1 and 5 Chapters 2 and 5

Kubasek et al., Dynamic

Business Law

Chapters 3, 7, 8, 9

and 42

Chapters 5, 7

and 49

Chapters 2 and 7 Chapters 5 and 7

Kubasek et al., Dynamic

Business Law: Summarized

Cases

Chapters 3, 7, 8, 9

and 42

Chapters 5, 7

and 49

Chapters 2 and 7 Chapters 5 and 7

Kubasek et al., Dynamic

Business Law: The Essentials

Chapters 3, 6, 7

and 25

Chapters 5, 6

and 8

Chapters 2 and 6 Chapters 5 and 6

Mallor et al., Business Law:

The Ethical, Global, and E-

Commerce Environment

Chapters 2, 3, 5,

6 and 7

Chapters 3, 5

and 24

Chapters 4 and 5 Chapters 3 and 5

McAdams et al., Law, Business

& Society

Chapters 4, 7

and 12

Chapters 4 and 5 Chapters 2 and 4 Chapters 4 and 5

Melvin, The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial

Approach

Chapters 4, 10, 12 and 23

Chapters 2, 23 and 24

Chapters 5 and 23 Chapters 2 and 23

Pagnattaro et al., The Legal

and Regulatory Environment

of Business

Chapters 4, 10,

13 and 21

Chapters 6, 7

and 13

Chapters 2 and 13 Chapters 6 and 13

Proceedings

A monthly newsletter from McGraw-Hill September 2015 Volume 7, Issue 2

Business Law and Legal Environment of Business Newsletter17

This Newsletter Supports the Following Business Law Texts:

Barnes et al., Law for Business, 12th Edition 2015© (0078023815)

Bennett-Alexander et al., Employment Law for Business, 8th Edition 2015© (0078023793) Bennett-Alexander et al., The Legal Environment of Business in A Diverse Society, 1st Edition 2012© (0073524921)

Brown et al., Business Law with UCC Applications Student Edition, 13th Edition 2013© (0073524956) Kubasek et al., Dynamic Business Law, 3rd Edition 2015© (0078023785) Kubasek et al., Dynamic Business Law: Summarized Cases, 1st Edition 2013© (0078023777)

Kubasek et al., Dynamic Business Law: The Essentials, 3rd Edition 2016© (007802384X) Mallor et al., Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment, 16th Edition 2016© (0077733711)

McAdams et al., Law, Business & Society, 11th Edition 2015© (0078023866) Melvin, The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach, 2nd edition 2015© (0078023807)

Pagnattaro et al., The Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business, 17th Edition 2016© (0078023858)