Flood Plans: A Comparison of New Jersey’s Use of the National Flood Insurance Program and New York’s Buyout Program

By Ariella N. Sparr

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, state and federal governments are creating plans to protect coastlines from future devastation with uncertain outcomes for homeowners. The Governors of two of the hardest hit states, New York and New Jersey, have announced two different plans for the devastated property on their shores. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie proposed that homeowners either spend tens of thousands of dollars to elevate their homes, or pay up to $31,000 per year for federally-funded flood insurance. In lieu of federal flood insurance, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a buyout program for certain coastal areas destroyed by the storm. Under this plan, Governor Cuomo proposes to offer the pre-devastation market value of the property to homeowners, and re-purpose the land as dunes, wetlands, natural buffers or public parkland to protect the coast. While homeowners could benefit from both plans, the question arises, which of these programs offers better remedies to homeowners?

Compassion for Patients but Not for Parents? Medical Marijuana, Decriminalization & Child Protective Services

By Jess Cochrane

Despite the federal Controlled Substances Act’s wholesale prohibition of cannabis—classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance with no potential medical use—twenty states and Washington D.C. have approved medicinal marijuana programs, and 17 have “decriminalized” possession of small amounts of the plant for personal use. In 2008 and 2012, Massachusetts voters approved marijuana reform ballot initiatives in recognition of marijuana’s potential medicinal value and the unnecessarily harsh consequences for petty possession of the substance. Both laws carve out certain circumstances under which an adult may use and possess limited amounts of marijuana, subject to minimal oversight from state agencies.

In this article, I analyze the protections which both laws offer to pregnant women, parents, and caretakers of minor children, who, compared with non-parenting individuals, face an added layer of possible state sanctions for marijuana possession in the form of child protective services (“CPS”) actions.

Tripping Over TRIPS: Developing Countries’ Access to Lifesaving Medications

By Ashley Cohen and Cassandra Montgomery

After years of pressure, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has become a prerequisite for any country if it wishes to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).  TRIPS is an international treaty which globalizes and regulates intellectual property.  Article 31 in the TRIPS Agreement deals with authorized use of patents without the authorization of the patent holder.   In this article we specifically examine some problems and potential solutions of authorized use for emergencies provided for in Article 31.   Many countries sign onto the TRIPS Agreement in order to benefit from joining the WTO.  However, most developing countries are not equipped to meet the demands of the TRIPS Agreement, though they are allowed four years to comply with its requirements.   These third-world countries often need lifesaving drugs they cannot afford to produce themselves and cannot acquire without special provisions.  Consequently, it is necessary to allow special provisions in the TRIPS Agreement to meet the pharmaceutical and health care needs of these developing countries.  New provisions and clarifications are required to remove this barrier to pharmaceutical access. The dilemma lies in how to successfully implement such provisions.