AirTalk for January 3, 2013

Listen 1:35:04

Apple

Spotify

Could marijuana regulation in Los Angeles change this May? We'll look at two ballot initiatives dealing with medical dispensaries. We'll also consider plans for immigration reform that could ease family hardship and talk about Al Jazeera's purchase of Al Gore's Current TV. Later, we'll look at how schools are handling student reactions to tragedy and discuss tablet technology. All that and more, today on AirTalk.

AirTalk for January 3, 2013

Could marijuana regulation in Los Angeles change this May? We'll look at two ballot initiatives dealing with medical dispensaries. We'll also consider plans for immigration reform that could ease family hardship and talk about Al Jazeera's purchase of Al Gore's Current TV. Later, we'll look at how schools are handling student reactions to tragedy and discuss tablet technology. All that and more, today on AirTalk.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

Could marijuana regulation in Los Angeles change this May? We'll look at two ballot initiatives dealing with medical dispensaries. We'll also consider plans for immigration reform that could ease family hardship and talk about Al Jazeera's purchase of Al Gore's Current TV. Later, we'll look at how schools are handling student reactions to tragedy and discuss tablet technology. All that and more, today on AirTalk.

Two new pot-shop referenda coming on LA ballot

Two separate groups sponsoring initiatives to regulate medical marijuana in Los Angeles have submitted signatures to qualify for the May ballot. A Los Angeles city clerk confirmed on Wednesday that the Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative Ordinance, which would permit only the medical marijuana dispensaries that existed before the city’s 2007 moratorium, had over 41,000 signatures.

Major medical marijuana advocacy groups, including Americans for Safe Access and the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance, as well as the local arm of the powerful United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, back the initiative.  If passed, it would leave about 100 dispensaries open in Los Angeles. A separate initiative, the Regulation of Medical Marijuana for Safe Neighborhoods and Safe Access, sponsored by Angelenos for Safe Access, has submitted over 60,000 signatures and hopes to be qualified for the ballot as well. That initiative would provide for a tax increase on marijuana sales in addition to restrictions on dispensary locations to limit their proximity to schools. The L.A. City Council has struggled to regulate medical marijuana; it’s already considering adopting an ordinance that would allow most pot shops to stay open, but would increase regulations on their locations and operations.

Federal crackdown on Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries has increased in recent years – the local U.S. Attorney has issued over 70 cease and desist orders. But that may change: public views on marijuana regulations and restrictions are in flux, and President Obama recently stood up for state marijuana regulations.

During the November election, Colorado and Washington both passed measures legalizing recreational marijuana.  Is California on its way to looser marijuana laws? How should Los Angeles regulate medical marijuana?  With two competing measures on the May ballot, how will Angelenos cast their votes?

Guests:

Don Duncan, Southern California coordinator for Americans for Safe Access and spokesperson for The Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods, sponsors of the Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative Ordinance 

Correction: An earlier version of this post erroneously stated that both measures had qualified for the ballot. A second initiative is currently under review by the City Clerk. 

Immigration reform by fiat? Families can now wait for visas inside US

Immigrants closely related to U.S. citizens can now apply for visas from the U.S., according to a rule announced by the Department of Homeland Security, Wednesday. Until now, immigrant parents, children or spouses of American citizens were required to return to their home country to apply for legal status. Because of a separate 1996 law meant to discourage repeat migration to the U.S., immigrants who had overstayed a prior visa can be barred from returning for 3 to 10 years. As a result, many immigrants who could be eligible for legal status through a close family member chose to stay in the U.S. illegally and opt out of the visa process altogether. 

Now, family members can seek legal status from the United States, and return to their home countries when a visa is ready, leaving for a few weeks instead of years. The administration says this rule change keeps families together and encourages people who are here illegally to come forward and seek legal recognition.  The rule could affect 1 million of the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally.

Is this step a smart way to ensure that families stay together? Or is it a giant loophole that significantly alters immigration policy? And, what role will Congress play, when recent policy changes have all come from the White House?

Guest:

Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy at the Center for American Progress

Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies

Al Jazeera closes deal to buy Current TV

The Qatar-based media company Al Jazeera has purchased former Vice President Al Gore’s Current TV. The cost of Current is rumored to be $500 million, with a $100 million payout to Gore. Current has been struggling to establish itself as a news and talk show on par with the likes of Fox News or MSNBC.

In fact, a 2011 attempt to stage itself as a liberal news source by hiring Keith Olbermann backfired after he repeatedly clashed with management and left. While other major news channels can be found in approximately 100 million homes, Current has a measly 60 million. For these reasons, Current has long seemed doomed to low ratings, small audience shares and poor revenues.

But the purchase by Al Jazeera now has media critics and experts turning their heads. The company, which is run by Qatar’s state government, is widely respected as an unbiased source of straight information, without sensationalized opinions that have come to dominate most cable news outlets here in the United States. Meanwhile, conservatives are up in arms over the fact that Gore recently declined to even entertain an offer from Glenn Beck to purchase the channel. A possible complication might be that Time Warner Cable did not agree to the deal and will drop Current from its lineup, which presently provides the channel with 15 percent of its potential audience.

How do you feel about this deal? Is Current salvageable at this point? And what exactly are the details of the deal between the two companies? What will the face of Al Jazeera’s American presence look like once it all shakes out? Will you watch?  

Guest:

Bob Wheelock, Executive Producer for the Americas, Al Jazeera English, based in their Washington, D.C. office; formerly with ABC News

The risky business of celebrity photography: are paparazzi laws tough enough?

For decades, paparazzi have plagued the rich and famous and jeopardized the lives of not-so-famous bystanders and motorists with high-speed chases and reckless driving, all in risky pursuit of that million-dollar shot.  This week, photographer Chris Guerra was struck and killed by a car while illegally crossing a street after stopping to nab a shot of Justin Bieber’s car.  

The young star’s Ferrari had been pulled over by a California Highway Patrol officer; as it turns out, Bieber was not even in the car, which was being driven by a friend. The incident sparked renewed calls for a tightening of regulations on dangerous paparazzi activity. Bieber issued a statement saying that  “hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders, and the photographers themselves."

 Such legislation does exist: a 2010 California law makes reckless driving in pursuit of celebrity photos a separate crime with a 6-month jail term and a $2,500 fine. That law was first challenged in 2011, ironically, in the case of a photographer who was after a picture of Bieber. The case was thrown out by the judge and is currently on appeal after the judge concluded that the law violated First Amendment rights and could have stifling repercussions for news gatherers, wedding photographers and others.  

This latest incident, while tragic, didn’t involve dangerous driving; Guerra was on foot when he was killed. Does it still underscore the need for tougher laws?  

Are entertainers, their publicity machines and the star-hungry tabloids somehow complicit?  In the age of Instagram, anybody with an iPhone can shoot for the stars if they’re in the right place at the right time.  So why do paparazzi still go to such dangerous lengths?

Guests:

How best to handle student reactions to tragedy

In San Francisco, a high school student has been suspended for writing a poem with violent allusions and referencing the Newtown shooting. Courtni Webb’s poem was discovered by a teacher and sent to school officials, who deemed the poem posed a threat to the school’s zero tolerance policy on violence. While there is obviously a debate to be had over the issues of mixing art and free speech on a school campus, there is an underlying issue here that deserves some attention. When students write or create violent imagery or employ morbid references, what is really going on? Is it an innocent form of expression? Or is it a cry for help? How can you tell the difference, and is it safer to just assume the worst?

What’s the best way to deal with this situation for teachers and parents? What about for the student? Is there an ideal way to approach this issue so that all parties can feel safe and justified, or is punitive action the only acceptable recourse?

Guest:

Ailleth Tom, Coordinator for School Mental Health, Los Angeles Unified School District; Licensed clinical social worker

Tablet tech talk

An estimated 122 million tablet computers were sold in 2012. Yet they’re still not as functional as a laptop computer for everyday computing, or as good as a cell phone for texting and talking.

Given the tablet’s already-immense popularity, and the huge predicted growth in the tablet market, guessing right on the next step in its evolution will likely mean a huge financial windfall and industry dominance to whichever computer-maker gets it right. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be Apple, whose share of the tablet market is dipping down towards 50 percent.

Who will get the next generation of tablet computer right? Why are tablets so popular in an era of amazing smart phones and superpowered laptops? What makes your tablet useful to you?

Guest:

Dan Ackerman, Senior Editor for CNET