Crime
In 2020, the Canadian Province, British Columbia, began what they call the “safer supply” program. Under this program, doctors have expanded authority to write prescriptions for fentanyl, not just for things like pain during surgery, but for recreational use by addicts. Recently, the program was expanded to allow doctors to prescribe fentanyl to minors for recreational use without parental knowledge or consent. I’m not even joking. You can read about it here.
In related news, British Columbia has one-eighth of Canada’s population, but accounts for one-third of all overdose deaths. The leading cause of death among 10–18-year-olds in British Columbia is drug overdose. Maybe passing out fentanyl like bubble gum is a bad idea.
Textualism
In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Act was designed to protect investors from fraudulent corporations in response to the Enron collapse. One part of the Act says:
whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in official proceedings; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Federal prosecutors have used the second half of this provision, the part I italicized, to charge over 300 people who participated in the January 6 Capitol riots. Prosecutors argue that the rioters were obstructing the certification of the presidential election. Many January 6 defendants have argued that the Sarbanes-Oxley language only applies to financial crimes, and that the government must prove that the defendants not only obstructed a proceeding, but corruptly altered, destroyed mutilated or concealed a record, document or other object. In short, they argue that the statutory language must be read as a whole and in the context of the financial crimes regulation. As the cases have moved through the system, Federal U.S. Circuit Courts have split on this question. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case of Fischer v. U.S. to provide an answer. The case will turn on textual analysis, and the implications are broad. It may impact the cases of over 300 January 6 defendants, including the case against Donald Trump.
Free speech
This week, the media site, The Free Press, released a study of “banned books.” We have heard a lot recently about book banning from the left. They claim that conservatives are causing schools to remove books from school libraries. The Free Press looked at 5,000 school libraries across the country. It found that books the left says are being banned (they have compiled a list) are actually widely available. They did find many books unavailable, however. Conservative books. For instance, the study found that while books by Democrat politicians are available in 75% of school libraries, zero libraries had books by Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Tim Scott, or Ron DeSantis. Mike Pence’s book was available in 6% of school libraries. As another example, 60% of school libraries had the book, Stamped, by social justice advocate, Ibram X. Kendi, but 0% had the concurrently published book, Social Justice Fallacies, by economist Thomas Sowell. You can read about The Free Press study here.