Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Reintroduce Legislation to Legalize Marijuana

      by

      The bill, which reflects growing support for legalization, would end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But it is unlikely to pass in an election year and a divided government.Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.The bill, which amounts to a Democratic wish list for federal cannabis policy, would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from a controlled substances list. The government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances.The legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain federal marijuana-related offenses from criminal records, expand research into marijuana’s health impacts and devote federal money to helping communities and individuals affected by the war on drugs.The measure, which was first introduced in 2022, was led by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Fifteen other Senate Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.“Over the decades, millions of Americans, most often Americans of color, have had their lives derailed and destroyed by our country’s failed war on drugs,” Mr. Schumer, the first majority leader to call for federal legalization, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “In place of the war on drugs, our bill would lay the foundation for something very different: a just and responsible and common-sense approach to cannabis regulation.”He reintroduced the measure one day after the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading it to a lower classification on the controlled substances list. That move did not go as far as some advocates and many Democrats have urged, but it was a significant shift reflecting the Biden administration’s efforts to liberalize marijuana policy.“Reclassifying cannabis is a necessary and long-overdue step, but it is not at all the end of the story,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s time for Congress to wake up to the times and do its part by passing the cannabis reform that most Americans have long called for. It’s past time for Congress to catch up with public opinion and to catch up with the science.”But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, warned about the dangers of legalization and argued that such a bill would “commercialize” the marijuana industry and create “Big Tobacco 2.0.”“Let’s not commercialize marijuana in the name of social justice,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group. While he supported certain elements of the bill, such as expunging criminal records and removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, he said legalization was ultimately about “supersizing a commercial industry.”“And we really have to think long and hard after our horrible experience with Big Tobacco in our country,” he said, “whether that’s going to be good for us or not.”Still, the legislation reflects growing support among Democrats and across the country in both Republican- and Democratic-leaning states for legalizing access to marijuana, in addition to the issue’s potential political value ahead of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.Legalization, in some form, is broadly popular across the country, with 88 percent of Americans saying marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center. Twenty-four states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 states have approved it for medicinal purposes. And where marijuana legalization has appeared on state ballots, it has won easily, often outperforming candidates in either party.Advocates of legalization have emphasized the issue’s political potency in trying to convince elected officials.“If anybody was looking at the political tea leaves, they would have to realize that obstructing cannabis policy reform — it is a losing proposition as a politician,” said Morgan Fox, the political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “This is really a rallying point for people that care about cannabis policy reform.”At least one Democrat, Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a leading cannabis advocate in Congress, has urged the Biden administration to embrace full legalization and make it a more prominent part of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. He has argued that the issue could help the president engage young people, whose support for him has faltered, but who could be crucial to victory in November.The Biden administration’s move to downgrade cannabis on the controlled substances list also reflects the president’s evolution on the issue. Mr. Biden has pardoned thousands of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses in an effort to remedy racial disparities in the justice system. And Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, has emphasized that Mr. Biden had been “very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana.”Mr. Trump’s record on legalization is more mixed. In 2018, his administration freed prosecutors to aggressively enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had eased prohibitions on the drug. Mr. Trump later appeared to break with his administration, saying he was likely to support a legislative proposal to leave legalization to states, and he pardoned several nonviolent drug offenders.“This has not been an issue that is really coming up in conversation, at rallies or in media appearances and whatnot,” Mr. Fox said. “It’s kind of an unknown, how a future Trump administration would deal with cannabis.”Congress is considering more incremental bills that would ease restrictions on marijuana — such as by allowing legal cannabis businesses to access financial services — several of which have bipartisan support. But most are not expected to move during this Congress, given Republican opposition. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Smartphones on Wheels’ Draw Attention From Regulators

      by

      Modern cars are internet-connected and have hundreds of sensors. Lawmakers and regulators have concerns about what’s happening with all that data.In the American imagination, car keys and a driver’s license have long represented freedom, autonomy and privacy. But modern cars, which have hundreds of sensors, cameras and internet connectivity, are now potential spying machines acting in ways drivers do not completely understand.That has lawmakers and regulators concerned.On Tuesday, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts sent a letter to Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, urging the agency to investigate automakers for sharing drivers’ location information with the police. The senators, both Democrats, say this sharing can “seriously threaten Americans’ privacy” by revealing their visits to protests, health clinics, places of worship, support groups or other sensitive places.“As far-right politicians escalate their war on women, I’m especially concerned about cars revealing people who cross state lines to obtain an abortion,” Senator Wyden said in a statement.Government attention to the car industry is intensifying, experts say, because of the increased technological sophistication of modern cars.Investigators for the Government Accountability Office recently went car shopping, undercover, to see whether salespeople were overselling autonomous driving abilities. In a March report, the agency concluded that consumers don’t fully understand crash avoidance technologies and driver support systems, the improper use of which “can compromise their safety benefits and even pose a risk on the road.”The Federal Communications Commission and California lawmakers want to prevent mobile car apps from being used for stalking and harassment. The F.C.C. has proposed regulating automakers under the Safe Connections Act — aimed, originally, at phone carriers — while California is likely to pass a law that would accomplish the same thing, requiring car companies to cut off abusers’ remote access to victims’ cars.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      All New U.S. Cars Must Carry Automatic Brakes by 2029

      by

      The technology is already sold on most vehicles, but a new federal safety regulation raises the standards. Starting in 2029, a new federal safety regulation will require all new cars and trucks in the United States to be sold with automatic emergency braking — sensors that hit the brakes to avoid a collision if the driver does not.The new rule, which was made final on Monday, imposes more stringent requirements than the automatic emergency braking technology now sold on most vehicles, and even goes past the point of present technological feasibility, automakers said. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set a September 2029 date for compliance, saying it was confident that the systems would be ready by then.Under the standards, outlined in a 317-page document, all “light vehicles,” which include cars, large pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, will have to be able to automatically hit their brakes to avoid hitting another vehicle at speeds of up to 62 miles per hour. The system will also have to at least begin to apply the brakes at speeds up to 90 m.p.h. if a collision is imminent. That’s higher than the maximum U.S. speed limit of 85 m.p.h. The system will have to detect pedestrians, too.The new rule is meant to address the steady climb of traffic deaths in recent years, according to officials.NHTSAThe rules are necessary because of steadily climbing traffic deaths in recent years, Biden administration officials argued. “The new vehicle safety standards we finalized today will save hundreds of lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries every year,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement.An estimated 41,000 people were killed in automobile accidents in the United States in 2023.Automatic braking systems are a relatively new feature, and regulators and carmakers alike agree that they have already helped save lives. Introduced in 2011, they typically use cameras, radar or both to identify other vehicles, pedestrians or obstacles in front of a car.They usually alert the driver if a collision is possible, then force the application of the brakes if needed.Carmakers have said they needed no prodding to adopt the systems, pointing out that, in 2016, they voluntarily agreed to make the technology standard in all new cars and trucks. About 90 percent of new vehicles on sale now have some form of automatic emergency braking.Regulators said on Monday that carmakers had expressed concern about “taking away the driver’s authority” at high speeds.The industry’s main lobbying group, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, “viewed the expectation that manufacturers are capable of providing undefined levels of avoidance at all speeds as neither practicable nor reasonable,” regulators said.The Biden administration estimated the rule’s cost at an average of $23 per vehicle. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Reaches Deals in China on Self-Driving Teslas

      by

      Elon Musk met with the country’s premier, a longtime Tesla ally, and secured regulatory nods and a necessary partnership with a Chinese tech company.Tesla has concluded a series of arrangements with regulators and a Chinese artificial intelligence company during a quick trip to Beijing on Sunday and Monday by Elon Musk, the car maker’s chief executive, potentially clearing the way for the company to offer its most advanced self-driving software on cars in China.Tesla had faced a couple hurdles to offering the latest level of autonomous driving, which it calls supervised Full Self-Driving. It has needed approval from Chinese regulators, who questioned whether the company took adequate precautions to protect data. And it has needed access to extremely high-resolution maps across the country.Mr. Musk flew on his private jet to Beijing on Sunday morning and met almost immediately with Premier Li Qiang, China’s No. 2 official after Xi Jinping. Mr. Li is a longtime ally of Mr. Musk who, when he served as Communist Party secretary in Shanghai, helped clear the way for Tesla’s construction there of what is now the company’s largest car assembly plant.The government-linked China Association of Automobile Manufacturers later announced that Tesla and five Chinese automakers had obtained approval from authorities and the association for their data security precautions on dozens of car models. The rules bar automakers in China from using software that would identify the faces of anyone outside their vehicles, and include many other restrictions. Self-driving systems use cameras to guide vehicles.The cars included Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y. The five Chinese manufacturers included BYD, which is China’s dominant electric vehicle company and Tesla’s primary global rival, and Nio, a longtime player in China’s auto sector. Tesla has run a data center in Shanghai for the past three years that handles the extensive information accumulated by the cars it has sold in China as they navigate the country’s roads. China has tightened its data security regulations in recent years to severely limit information leaving the country.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      A Close Examination of the Most Infamous Public Toilet in America

      by

      On a recent sunny Sunday, residents of San Francisco’s Noe Valley gathered to celebrate the opening of a toilet. But not just any toilet. This was the nation’s most infamous public toilet.In 2022, my colleague Heather Knight, then at The San Francisco Chronicle, noticed the projected price tag on the commode: $1.7 million, which Assemblyman Matt Haney had secured from the state. This was business as usual in San Francisco. Other public toilets had cost about the same. Local officials were planning a celebration. But Knight’s article set off a furor. Gov. Gavin Newsom clawed back the money. The party was canceled. Haney denounced the project he had made possible: “The cost is insane. The process is insane. The amount of time it takes is insane.” He wanted answers.Phil Ginsburg, the general manager of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department, responded with a letter that is a masterpiece of coiled bureaucratic fury. He told Haney that the department had been “pleasantly surprised” by the “unexpected allocation” of $1.7 million for the Noe bathroom. “Until now,” Ginsburg wrote, “we have not received any questions from you on the estimate.”But Ginsburg was happy to walk Haney through the numbers and describe how Haney, as a former member of San Francisco’s powerful Board of Supervisors and a current member of the State Legislature, bore responsibility for them. “As you will see, the process is indeed long and expensive,” he noted. “It is also the result of many years of political choices and exacerbated by skyrocketing costs.”There’s the planning and design phase, which requires bringing the design for the public toilet to “community engagement stakeholders” and refining it based on their feedback. That typically takes three to six months. Then the Public Works Department can solicit bids from outside contractors. That takes six months. Construction takes four to six months more, depending on whether a prefab toilet is used or one is constructed on site. The toilet also needed approval from the Department of Public Works, the Planning Department, the Department of Building Inspection, the Arts Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Mayor’s Office on Disability and PG&E, the local electric utility.“I share your frustration and concern over the length and costs associated with public construction processes,” Ginsburg wrote. “As an elected official, I hope you will advocate for policy changes at the state and local level to make it easier to move small projects like this one.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Auto Safety Regulator Investigating Tesla Recall of Autopilot

      by

      The National Highway Safety Administration said it had concerns about how Tesla handled the recall based on recent crashes and testing of cars that had been updated.The federal government’s main auto safety agency said on Friday that it was investigating Tesla’s recall of its Autopilot driver-assistance system because regulators were concerned that the company had not done enough to ensure that drivers remained attentive while using the technology.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in documents posted on its website that it was looking into Tesla’s recall in December of two million vehicles, which covered nearly all of the cars the company had manufactured in the United States since 2012. The safety agency said that it had concerns about crashes that took place after the recall and results from preliminary tests of recalled vehicles.The investigation adds to a list of headaches for Tesla, the dominant electric vehicle maker in the United States. The company’s sales fell more than 8 percent in the first three months of the year compared with the same period a year earlier, the first such drop since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.Tesla announced in December that it would recall its autopilot software after an investigation by the auto safety agency found that the carmaker hadn’t put in place enough safeguards to make sure the system, which can accelerate, brake and control cars in other ways, was used safely by drivers who were supposed to be ready at any moment to retake control of their cars using Autopilot.The agency said it had identified at least 13 fatal crashes tied to use of Autopilot. The company is also facing lawsuits from individuals who claim the system is defective, and its design contributed to or is responsible for serious injuries and deaths.The recall, which entails a wireless software update, includes more prominent visual alerts and checks when drivers are using Autopilot to remind them to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road. The recall covers all five of Tesla’s passenger models — the 3, S, X, Y and Cybertruck.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      You Don’t Have to Freak Out About Boeing Planes

      by

      “Ah, it’s a Boeing Max,” I exclaimed to my travel companions after we boarded our plane a few weeks ago. I looked to see if we were seated next to a hidden door plug panel like the one that blew out on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 in January. We weren’t, but joining a trend on social media, we cracked a few jokes at Boeing’s expense: “Maybe they can charge extra, saying it’s potentially an even bigger window seat.”The Federal Aviation Administration recently informed the passengers on that ill-fated Alaska Airlines flight that they may have been crime victims. The agency hasn’t explained why, but Boeing has told the Senate that it cannot find documentation of exactly how the door plug was removed and reinstalled, even though the company acknowledged it is supposed to have kept such records. Facing all this, the company announced last week that it was replacing its chief executive. But the bad news wasn’t over: On Thursday, a New York Times investigation reported a disturbing pattern of sloppy safety procedures and dangerous cost-cutting. One expert who had spent more than a decade at Boeing told The Times, “The theme is shortcuts everywhere — not doing the job right.”Is it any wonder that some travelers are trying to avoid Boeing planes? Kayak, the travel booking site, noticed an uptick in the number of people trying to weed them out; it recently made that search filter more prominent and even added an option to specifically avoid certain models.Boeing’s problems, great as they are, are just one reason that consumers might be wary of taking flight. United Airlines now also faces scrutiny for a series of safety incidents, although many experts say the issues there do not appear to be systemic. The biggest danger of all may be understaffed air traffic controllers and overstuffed runways, which lead to far too many near misses.Personally, I am not worried about flying and other than cracking some ill-advised jokes, I have not changed my behavior. That’s why I hadn’t bothered to check whether I’d be flying on a Boeing Max, or any type of Boeing plane, until after I boarded.The trajectory of Boeing as a corporation, however, is another matter. It’s going to take a lot more than a shuffle at the top to fix that company’s problems. But the fact that Boeing managed to cut as many corners as it did is testament to the layers and layers of checks, redundancies and training that have been built into the aviation industry. Aviation safety is so robust because we made it so.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Government Bans on Social Media Endanger Speech Rights

      by

      My entire life I’ve seen a similar pattern. Older generations reflect on the deficiencies of “kids these days,” and they find something new to blame. The latest technology and new forms of entertainment are always bewitching our children. In my time, I’ve witnessed several distinct public panics over television, video games and music. They’ve all been overblown.This time, however, I’m persuaded — not that smartphones are the sole cause of increasing mental health problems in American kids, but rather that they’re a prime mover in teen mental health in a way that television, games and music are not. No one has done more to convince me than Jonathan Haidt. He’s been writing about the dangers of smartphones and social media for years, and his latest Atlantic story masterfully marshals the evidence for smartphones’ negative influence on teenage life.At the same time, however, I’m wary of government intervention to suppress social media or smartphone access for children. The people best positioned to respond to their children’s online life are parents, not regulators, and it is parents who should take the lead in responding to smartphones. Otherwise, we risk a legal remedy that undermines essential constitutional doctrines that protect both children and adults.I don’t want to minimize the case against phones. Haidt’s thesis is sobering:Once young people began carrying the entire internet in their pockets, available to them day and night, it altered their daily experiences and developmental pathways across the board. Friendship, dating, sexuality, exercise, sleep, academics, politics, family dynamics, identity — all were affected.The consequences, Haidt argues, have been dire. Children — especially teenagers — are suffering from greater rates of anxiety and depression, and suicide rates have gone up; and they spend less time hanging out with friends, while loneliness and friendlessness are surging.Neither smartphones nor social media are solely responsible for declining teen mental health. The rise of smartphones correlates with a transformation of parenting strategies, away from permitting free play and in favor of highly managed schedules and copious amounts of organized sports and other activities. The rise of smartphones also correlates with the fraying of our social fabric. Even there, however, the phones have their roles to play. They provide a cheap substitute for in-person interaction, and the constant stream of news can heighten our anxiety.I’m so convinced that smartphones have a significant negative effect on children that I’m now much more interested in the debate over remedies. What should be done?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More