Criminal charges against marijuana compassion club volunteers stayed on constitutional grounds

A Court of Québec judge stayed trafficking charges laid in February 2000 against two Montréal men in conjunction with the operation of a medical marijuana compassion club. The judge determined that it would be unjust to allow the criminal procedure to continue. Section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) unjustifiably infringed the accuseds' Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person (section 7) by prohibiting the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes when no legal source or supply existed at the time.     

Marihuana Medical Access Regulations unconstitutional because they do not provide for legal source or supply of marijuana

In a 9 January 2003 ruling in Hitzig, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) fail to provide for a legal source and safe supply of marijuana. This failure infringed the applicants' section 7 Charter rights to liberty and security of the person in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice. The MMAR could not be saved under section I of the Charter. The Court declared the MMAR invalid, but suspended that order for six months to allow the government to decide how to create a legal source and supply of marijuana.     

Multinationals and institutional competitiveness

This article discusses how institutional competitiveness and multinationals are mutually enriching concepts. Multinationals transfer capital, technology, and knowledge into new settings. They allow subsidiaries access to new markets, new resources, and new processes. Potentially, therefore, institutional competitiveness can be increased by the presence of multinational corporations (MNCs) and their subsidiaries. However, this depends on the type of multinational and the type of institutional context. By differentiating two types of MNC in terms of short‐term and long‐term orientations to investment, and two types of host institutional setting in terms of strength of institutional complementarities and interconnectedness, we develop a typology of four types of interaction between MNCs and institutional settings. We then analyze how each type influences institutional competitiveness. We conclude that these outcomes, while structurally shaped, are still dependent on how actors (individuals, firms, collective organizations, and governments) strategize to develop institutional frameworks in the context of highly competitive global markets.     

Committees in legislatures: A property rights perspective

Without the imposition of some institutional structure, a legislature is a non-exclusive resource, and legislators will have a tendency to overuse the resource and reduce its productivity. The committee system is a method for granting property rights over the legislature's agenda by subdividing the agenda and assigning each committee rights over a portion of the agenda. Just as common grazing ground could be more productive if it were subdivided and assigned to individual owners, the legislature is more productive if access to the agenda is subdivided and assigned to committees.Ownership rights to committee assignments are allocated based on seniority because this makes the rights more secure and therefore more valuable to their owners. In the United States Congress, the seniority rule replaced a system in which assignments were made at the discretion of party leaders. In the former system, legislators needed to expend effort to retain their assignments, which diminished their ability to use their assignments productively. Because individuals can use resources more productively if they do not have to be concerned about protecting their ownership interest, the seniority system enables the legislature to be more productive in producing legislation.     

Are Behavioral Measures of Self-Control and the Grasmick Self-Control Scale Measuring the Same Construct? A Meta-Analysis

The Grasmick attitudinal scale of self-control (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29, 1993) is one of the more commonly used measures in research on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control concept. What has yet to be determined is whether the Grasmick scale correlates as well with crime and delinquency as behavioral measures of self-control and whether the Grasmick scale correlates better with these behavioral measures than it does with crime and delinquency. A meta-analysis was performed on 13 samples obtained from published research where the Grasmick scale, a behavioral or consequences measure of self-control, and an estimate of crime or delinquency were all administered to participants. All analyses were computed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, Version 2 (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005) software. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the Grasmick scale and behavioral/consequences measures of self-control achieved comparable correlations with concurrent measures of crime and delinquency but correlated no higher with each other than they did with crime and delinquency. Four possible interpretations of these results are considered: (1) the self-control concept advanced by Gottfredson and Hirschi is a tautology; (2) the attitudinal and behavioral/consequences measures of self-control are measuring different constructs; (3) self-control is a multidimensional construct; (4) self-report measures of behavioral self-control are inadequate for assessing low self-control.     

A Mediator's Dilemma: Acknowledging or Disregarding Stance Displays

Mediators must strike a balance. On the one hand, they must direct participants' talk toward possible agreement. On the other hand, they must be sensitive and responsive to participants' evident stance (including affect and point of view) toward what is happening. In a case study of a videotaped, actual small claims court mediation session, several moments in which these competing constraints appear evident in the talk are analyzed. One participant (the landlord in a housing dispute) provides repeated indicators of his stance. The mediator disregards several of these. Finally, in a private caucus session, he acknowledges the landlord's stance. Understanding how talk works in such moments can help mediators respond sensitively to participants while maintaining impartiality and guiding the mediation process.     

The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles and Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version as Predictors of Official and Self-reported Disciplinary Infractions

A total of 159 male inmates screened with the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) and Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version (LSI-R:SV) were followed for a period of 24 months for evidence of disciplinary infractions (incident reports). Eighty-three of these inmates also furnished a self-report of disciplinary infractions occurring during the 24-month follow-up. The PICTS General Criminal Thinking (GCT) score and LSI-R:SV total score correlated with and accurately identified the presence of an officially recorded disciplinary infraction, an officially recorded severe disciplinary infraction, and a self-reported disciplinary infraction but only age and the GCT score achieved incremental validity when age, GCT, and LSI-R:SV were included as predictors in the same probit regression or loglinear survival equation.     

The EU,Russia and the Manichean Trap

Conceptualizing the EU as a postmodern cooperative power that “transcends realism” provides ideological scaffolding for an exclusive conception of “Europe” and veils a zero-sum geopolitical project as “European integration”. Neoclassical realism considers assigning morally opposite political identities to the EU and Russia to be “rational” to the extent it strengthens internal cohesion and mobilizes resources to enhance security in accordance with the balance of power logic. Yet, the artificial binary construction can also produce a Manichean Trap when compromises required to enhance security are depicted as a betrayal of indispensable virtues and “Europe”. The ability to harmonize competing security interests diminishes as the conceptual space for comparing the EU and Russia is de-constructed. Competition is framed in uncompromising terms as “European integration” versus Russian “spheres of influence” and democracy versus authoritarianism.