Search results

This article provides a case study of the process of criminalising a form of dangerous driving in Victoria. It examines the process whereby an ostensibly draconian Bill was transformed into one far less damaging to fundamental criminal law principles and illustrates how populism may be tempered by proper parliamentary procedures, cooperation between parties and a desire to balance political and legal imperatives. It also examines the place of constructive offences in the criminal law and the role that the consequences of an offence plays in the structure of the substantive criminal law and in sentencing, particularly in the context of driving offences.

AbstractConsistent with Pope Francis's efforts to eradicate social exclusion, most countries in the world have already adopted care leave policies in an effort to reduce the conflict between being an employee and being a caregiver. Care leave policies allow workers time off for family or for self‐care. Historically, care leave policies such as maternity leave are viewed as an employee benefit akin to short‐term disability leave, providing job‐protected time off for new mothers. This study reviews the literature of the short‐ and long‐run economic and societal effects of care leave policies globally, with a specific focus on care leave policies in the United States. Care leave produces positive labor market and health outcomes, including increases in leave taking, improvement in replacement wages, improvements to profitability and employee morale, increases in female workforce participation and continuity, increases in birth weight, and decreases in infant mortality. Despite positive effects, labor market inequalities such as decreases in female labor market participation rates, gender wage gaps, and occupational segregation are often promoted by care leave policies. The conflicted findings in care leave research muddle the anticipated effects of paid care leave but allow room for alternative policy recommendations.

Explaining why the additive menthol in tobacco products creates major public health risks, this article advocates for restricting the addition of menthol in cigarettes as a way to reduce smoking-related disease and death. Author Michael Freiberg describes how the decision to regulate menthol in tobacco products, on a federal level, was historically delegated by Congress to the discretion of the U.S. FDA, outlines the U.S. FDA's subsequent failure to regulate menthol, and surveys state and local government efforts to regulate menthol in response to the FDA's inaction. The article proposes additional actions that these state and local governments could take to regulate menthol and analyzes which options are most likely to quickly and sufficiently address the public health problem of menthol tobacco additives. Finally, the article notes the three most effective options: prohibiting or restricting the sale of all flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes, raising the age to purchase menthol tobacco products, or requiring tobacco manufacturers to disclose the amount spent on marketing menthol tobacco products.

Most tobacco control laws were written to address the scourge of smoking - particularly smoking cigarettes. As a result, these laws frequently exclude non-cigarette tobacco products, which are becoming more prevalent on the market. These regulatory gaps jeopardize public health by increasing the possibility that these products will be used - particularly by minors and young adults. This article examines gaps in regulation using five products as case studies: dissolvable tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, little cigars, snus, and water pipes. In addition, this article presents policy options that state and local governments can adopt to regulate these products more effectively, including regulations relating to price, flavors, youth access, use in public places, point-of-sale warnings, and marketing. Furthermore, this article contains extensive discussion of the recently adopted federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which both limits and expands the power of state and local governments.