BREAKING: TheUS Supreme Court granted cert today to decide if Padilla v. Kentucky is retroactive. See below.
CBS News 60 Minutes reported Sunday evening that drug addiction was a disease:
In the battle against addiction, "just say no" is magical thinking, says Dr. Nora Volkow. She's the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and after spending decades studying the brains of addicts, Dr. Volkow has determined that drug addiction is a chronic disease that physically changes the brain. Dr. Volkow has found that even images of an addictive substance, such as alcohol or drugs, can produce a dopamine response in an addict's brain, and some foods can trigger a similar reaction. Morley Safer reports on Volkow's revolutionary research into addiction, as well as on her revolutionary family history.
The segment is here.
QUERY: Why aren't we prosecuting diabetics for excess sugar consumption? Or people with hypertension for heart disease? Why are we just prosecuting people whose disease is the use and abuse of narcotics?
And the NY Times reports that Type II diabetes (the type caused by
obesity) is now an epidemic in children. Whom do we arrest?
BREAKING: THE COURT GRANTED CERT TODAY.
The big legal question these days is whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky is retroactive?
The Florida Supreme Court (Motto: "Gore Won") is holding oral arguments on the issue in June of this year.
This week the US Supreme Court will consider a petition for cert in Chaidez v. U.S.
The decision on retroactivity has far reaching consequences for many foreign nationals convicted of a crime. As ICE steps up enforcement and is more frequently removing individuals who have criminal convictions, more people are seeking to have their prior convictions (99% of which resulted from a plea of guilty or no contest) set aside. Padilla, among other things, requires an affirmative duty on the part of defense attorneys to advise their client that a plea might result in their removal from the United Sates. The decision thus removes the "safe harbor" that prior counsel often sought in testifying that they weren't sure whether or not they provided such advice in a particular case despite testimony about their general practice of advising clients about removal. Without such affirmative testimony, a prior conviction can be
Have a good week. See you in court.