Court Action

In May 2024 an Atlanta area probate judge gained notoriety with a decision by the Georgia judicial discipline system recommending her removal from office. See She Must Go (May 2024). The judge faced as lengthy an array of allegations of wrongdoing as any I have experienced, and I have been watching judicial discipline for many years. It is persistently an interesting process to watch.

The Atlanta Constitution said the commission concluded the judge was "a lying, impetuous bully who was not good at her job." It characterized the commission's conclusions as the judge being "utterly denounced." and that the judge "should be catapulted from office." It is fair to say that some of the press coverage was direct and even harsh.

Later in May, voters decided not to support the judge in her bid for re-election. The Atlanta Constitution headline said she was "ousted by voters." The result of the primary election loss most likely meant an end to her judicial tenure coming in months, following the expiration of her first term. 

The judge made the news again in June, at a birthday celebration in Atlanta. See Adjectives and Appearances (June 2024). The behavior described there is more akin to the exploits of three intrepid judges several years ago. See Conferences and Consequences (November 2019). Those three managed to get into some significant difficulties that devolved into violence.

Time and again, I have noted and warned that the world is full of video cameras. See Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020), Drones, Surveillance and Security (June 2021), and Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021). Bottom line is that anyone outside of their home may be on camera at any moment, whether you know it or not.

As an aside, there is likely no place you are "safe" from cameras. See the ABC coverage of a child surreptitiously filmed in an airliner bathroom. Or, note the recent press allegations of a man with fake smoke detectors (cameras) installed in bathrooms in his home and Air BNB property. Cameras are truly ubiquitous. That is a generalism that is true. But if you encounter the police, the chances of body camera recordation are even higher.

The Douglas County judge has addressed her recent arrest at the birthday party and alleged that it was a "setup," according to the Atlanta Constitution. It is not clear who or how that allegation refers to. The nature of the "setup" will perhaps await a more detailed description or explanation. 

Nonetheless, it cannot be comforting to be persistently in the press. It is an uncomfortable world of conclusions and observations. Perhaps the press is kind in a piece, perhaps not so much. Criticism is likely always challenging, no matter the source. And the famous likely become acclimated to being always scrutinized. Without the fame and notoriety, any and every judge must likewise accept that they are under scrutiny 24.7.365. 

The Georgia Judge made the press yet again recently. Having been described by the commission as ready for removal, and having been arrested on video, she might have hoped to recede quietly from public view.

But, the end of June brought the Georgia Supreme Court decision that it would remove her from judicial office. Acting on the recommendations of the Qualifications Commission. She was removed "effective immediately, and prohibit(ed)...from holding any judicial office in the state for seven years," according to the Associated Press.

That is not surprising, nor unprecedented. Unfortunately, there are judges removed from office every year, and few face a litany of charges and allegations as lengthy as described here. Some will see redundancy in the Court action, removing a judge who has already failed re-election. But, the Court action is more immediate in effect than the election defeat, and more lasting. This judge is removed now, and cannot run for another post for several years. 

What is also notable, is that it is more public. There has been significant coverage of the Qualifications process in the Atlanta news. But the news of the Court's removal made it to such platforms as the Associate Press, MSN, Newsweek, and Bloomberg. Broad, national news coverage of the removal or a County Probate Judge. Some may wonder if a resignation would have garnered such attention. 

The Georgia Supreme Court opinion is not the easiest read. However, it is well worth the effort. The Justices analysis is poignant and compelling. The decision was unanimous. The majority opinion, to which there is a concurrence, led with a quote that bears repeating too often perhaps:

"[t]he judiciary's judgment will be obeyed only so long as the public respects it, and that respect will not long survive judges who act in a manner that undermines public confidence in their judgment and integrity.”

In the end, it will be troubling to some to read the news stories and the Court's conclusions. Nonetheless, there is guidance there for any judge regarding the Code of Judicial Conduct. The world of adjudication is no place for bullying or strained demeanor. 

Nitazenes are Worse

We have become accustomed to news about Fentanyl. The street version of this synthetic broke on our collective consciousness Fentanyl is Killing, Still (November 2021); Drugs and Overdose (January 2022) Overdose in the News (June 2022); The Fourth Wave (September 2023); Kill Every American (December 2022); A Vaccine Against Being High (January 2023). I have been reasonably clear on my feelings about overdose.

And there was the news of a horse tranquilizer making its way into the American street drug society. Xylazine (December 2023). That was apparently being mixed with Fentanyl to make a bad thing worse.

I have not experienced the challenges personally. Nonetheless, I know of families that have confronted this challenge. It is not discussed at cocktail parties, but there are those nagging and surprising deaths of young people. When someone in the prime of youth suddenly passes away, there is whispering, conjecture, and occasionally outright admission. Drug overdose is a real thing impacting real people.

A toddler in Los Angeles was visiting his mom and "somehow" came into contact with Fentanyl. Somehow that is allegedly the Welfare system's fault instead of the mother's. In North Dakota, the supplier of Fentanyl was convicted of murder in a Fentanyl death. In Houston, another supplier was recently charged. You don't have to look very hard to find the personal or societal impacts of synthetic opioids.

The CDC reports that efforts at prevention and education may be helping. The final numbers are not in for 2023, but "provisional data" suggests that

"there were an estimated 107,543 drug overdose deaths in the United States during 2023—a decrease of 3% from the 111,029 deaths estimated in 2022. This is the first annual decrease in drug overdose deaths since 2018."

That is still more overdose deaths than American lives lost in the Vietnam conflict. According to Statista, the lives lost in all American wars has been 1,304,447. Think on that, this country has lost about 1.3 million in all the wars dating to 1775. On average, 5,238 American lives were lost each year in our 249-year history of independence.

And in this century we have lost 1,243,539 lives to drug overdose. That is correct, in 2024, the aggregate American overdose deaths for the 21st century will exceed the American deaths in all wars over the last 249 years. The rate of overdose death is simply astounding.

It has gotten so much worse since I started writing about this. See Dying to Me Don't Sound Like All That Much Fun (October 2013) and Unintended Consequences (September 2014).

And, the undeniable driving force is synthetic opioids. It is impacting people who chose to ingest it and a wide assortment of men, women, and children who are accidentally exposed. It is, a pandemic.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently brought news of a new threat; "new synthetic opioids called nitazenes." The BBC notes that these "drugs are stronger than heroin and fentanyl, a prolific killer in the US." They are "produced in illicit labs in China and brought into the UK," where they are "mostly mixed with heroin."

Doctors in the UK are suspecting that these substances are increasingly present and dangerous. But, they are not being tested for in many overdose deaths. The health system is simply not equipped to perform those tests. Dr Pucci said: "I believe there are very few NHS labs around the country that are set up to test for nitazenes. According to officials in San Diego, the US is not much better prepared to test for this new threat. 

It is a new threat. The experts quoted think that these nitazenes have killed over 100 people in the UK. They are raising concerns and fear in increasing and pernicious threat. They contend that "Nitazenes are not going to be stopped until we get this word out. People are going to die." And, the lucky ones will live through exposure to this new threat, but nonetheless suffer hospitalization and health challenges.

"Stronger than heroin and fentanyl." There is an American pandemic of literally epic proportions. People are dying at the hands of Fentanyl, and there are new threats emerging from even more powerful chemicals. Some will pursue them, others will simply encounter them. You likely already know someone who knows an overdose victim. Eventually, you will know a victim.

It is a devastating trend, a tragic situation, and yet there seems to be a complacency. In 2024, we will almost certainly see the 60,908 overdoses that will push this century's total overdose deaths past the total aggregate American deaths in all wars. The numbers are simply staggering.

Construction?

The topic of mental health has been newsworthy for several years. Worker health and wellness received coverage before the pandemic, but there has seemingly been an uptick since. Too often, the coverage is focused on protecting ourselves or our workforce. I have persistently warned my students regarding their professional aspirations. So many of them have their sites set on law school. Being an attorney can be significantly challenging, stressful, and even exhausting. We typically hear that the professions with the "highest rates" for suicide include:

1. Medical Doctors

2. Dentists

3. Police Officers

4. Veterinarians

5. Financial Services

6. Real Estate Agents

7. Electricians

8. Lawyers

9. Farmers

10. Pharmacists

These are listed on a Psychotherapy website, and they seem consistent with other news reports over the years. But, the societal challenge with suicide is deeper and broader.  The workers' compensation struggle with the subject is often focused on the legalities. Is suicide covered by workers' compensation? Must it occur at work to be considered for compensability? The answers are most often "it depends," and a litany of follow-up questions ensue. 

Suicide is so important that the government has implemented a three-digit shortcut for help, 988. It is a simple shortcut to assistance. See September is Awareness Month (September 2022). Too few know of this recent tool. And, far too many are committing self-harm.

I was surprised recently, when the headlines noted Construction workers are dying by suicide at an alarming rate. NBC News reported that "the construction industry has one of the highest suicide rates among professions." Certainly, there is significant exposure to danger in that profession. The data has borne that out for years. It is not included on the lists we so often see (above). 

So why did "an estimated 6,000 construction workers (die) by suicide in 2022? The NBC article notes that about 1,000 others "died from a construction work-related injury." That puts the suicide rate at 6 times the accidental death rate in this profession. Frankly both numbers seem unacceptably high. 

Some suggest that it is the stand-by explanation of "pressure" and "stress." There are significant demands and insufficient supplies of construction workers. Many projects are going on in various places and workers are in demand. The article notes that many construction workers put in "more than 20-hour days," and they face challenges with weather, deadlines, and distance from home and family.

At one project, the article describes a schedule of "two 60-hour weeks followed by a 50-hour week." That schedule is worked, they say, "for months at a time," without vacation time and other accouterments. Some complain they are working 19-hour days, and suffering from sleep deprivation and other burnout symptoms.

While I grasp that this is real in the construction trades, I wonder if these work demands are not themselves a trending force? There are 168 hours in a week. If you sleep 8 hours per night, that is 56, leaving you 112.  Give yourself 1/2 hour each for breakfast and dinner and assume you sneak lunch at work. That's another 7 hours, leaving you 105. Each day, showering and other self-care morning and night is another 7, leaving you 98. According to the Census, the average commute is 26 minutes per day, each way. If you are cramming all your work into 5 days, so no weekend commuting, that's 5 hours, leaving you 93. 

From that 93 hours, if you work 60, there are 33 left. That is less than 5 per day for you. That is without taking a day off, a seven-day work week. More likely, one weekend day you are off, which is about 14 hours of your "free time" (24-8-1-1). leaving you about 19 spread across the other 6 days, or 3 hours a day for getting a coffee, engaging in social interactions, or reading insightful and entertaining blog posts. 

I am guessing that kind of pace, on a consistent basis, might be challenging for construction workers. But is it worse there than for virtually any other worker? Is such a pace of 60-hour weeks not just as demanding in any profession or occupation? Is it the construction industry, or is it the incredible and consistent time demand that is becoming normal in that industry?

This construction concern is not a recent trend. The article notes that the inception of the alarm about these increasing rates began in 2016. There are efforts underway to build resources, coping, and acceptance. But, as in some other industries, there is a major obstacle in that workers are reluctant to accept that they have challenges and needs. There is a stigma attached to those who have such thoughts, and a fear of appearing weak in seeking help. There is a feeling that "there is an industry culture that discourages many from asking for help."

Short answer: There is no stigma in seeking help. Any short-term detriment you feel or perceive is far less damaging and intrusive than death.  

Nonetheless, the article concludes that the force in construction is stress. One construction superintendent believes that work is "legitimately wringing the life out of people." There is some suggestion that the results may drive substance abuse and a variety of life challenges. Stress can certainly drive behavior, can create stress, and can lead to self-care challenges. But, it appears to be manifesting particularly in construction.

The Centers for Disease Control provide some pretty stark statistics. The "suicide rate per 100,000 in the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized working population":

was 32.0 among males and 8.0 among females.

Males are more apt to engage in self-harm. There are nine "major industry groups" in which suicide rates are "elevated":

Mining (males = 72.0);

Construction (males = 56.0; females = 10.4);

Other Services (e.g., automotive repair; males = 50.6; females = 10.4);

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (males = 47.9; females = 15.0),

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting (males = 47.9);

Transportation and Warehousing (males = 35.5);

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (males = 35.2);

Accommodation and Food Services (males = 34.7; females = 11.1); and

Health Care and Social Assistance (females = 8.5)

These are troubling numbers. They are likely surprising in at least some degree. While they support the concern for construction trades, perhaps there is a deeper meaning? What do these industry groups share? Why is there such a cluster of "elevate" rates? Why are men so much more prevalent in these statistics?

The simple point is that suicide will remain part of the challenge of the workplace. There are indicators here of systemic problems or challenges that bear addressing. It is an issue of safety, of health, and of productivity. The statistics are troubling, and the challenge is now. 

Adjectives and Appearances

Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct. That is a document proposed by the American Bar Association (a voluntary group to which some lawyers belong), and adopted in various forms by the states. Each state's code may differ in various ways from the ABA "model" and thus from each other. That said, most have included the Model Canon 1:

"A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."

I have introduced the reader to various judges over the years. There are many ways for judges to be at odds with the Code of Judicial Conduct. See Fund Raising and Politics by Judges (October 2018) and the various posts linked there. And there have been a few that graced these pages for actions and behavior that were more troublesome.

The New Miranda Warning (April 2020) described some alcohol use. So did Conferences and Consequences (November 2019). That was a real classic. It referenced heavy drinking, strip clubs, White Castle hamburgers, and the use of sign language. Some of the "do" and "don't" of being a judge are simply not that difficult to sort out. And, though we are governed by onerous rules that do not apply to most of society, those societal rules apply to us also.

Most recently there was She Must Go (May 2024). A critical point there was that judges are judges no matter the time. Judges are judges no matter the place. You are subject to this Code of Judicial Conduct even when the robe is off, or if you don't even own a robe or little wooden hammer in the first place. In She Must Go, a disciplinary proceeding of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Committee is recounted. It centered on "40 allegations of alleged judicial misconduct."

Adjectives were used to describe the situation included:

"Snarky"

"confused"

"hasty"

"sickeningly disproportionate"

In her defense, her attorney refuted the allegations. Though there were several allegations, counsel concluded “This is not a judge, that, in my view, even comes close to somebody that you would remove from the bench.” I noted that allegations are simply that and "there is not fire whenever there is smoke, but as the volume of smoke rises the search for fire will likely intensify."

The Commission concluded its efforts with findings of

"systemic incompetence"

"abuse"

"inappropriate" and

"failure to perform."

The Commission recommended that she be removed from the bench. Days passed, but not so many. The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC.com) reported the next week that Judge Peterson was "ousted by voters" in a primary election. Both the Commission report and Losing an election are undoubtedly stressful.  

May turned into June, and one recent Thursday morning an off-duty police officer in a nightclub "saw a woman who was crying." Many have seen that over the years, crying is unfortunate but not so surprising. The officer allegedly tried to speak to the woman. And, the officer says that Douglas County Judge Christina Peterson (yes, the same Judge Peterson) interceded in the police officer's conversation and the officer was "struck on the head."

One simple hint, never hit a police officer. That seems a simple rule, but a surprising number of people are arrested for that each year. WSB-TV Atlanta reports that the Judge did not identify herself and "appeared to be under the influence." Fox5 Atlanta reports that Judge "Peterson is facing felony obstruction of a police officer by using threats or violence and simple battery against a police officer."

Fox5 also reports that at the time, the judge "reportedly refused to tell officers her name." Newsweek reported on the arrest, and led with the headline "Infamous Georgia Judge Arrested in Nightclub Fight With Cop." It described Judge Peterson as "controversial" and somewhat "notorious."

Some reports refer to "judge" and others to "former judge."

The judge is quoted saying the arrest "was a setup." AJC News reports that the judge was "at the club with friends for a birthday party" and the "incident" occurred "shortly after 3 a.m." It says that the judge "approached a male police officer and struck him 'with a closed fist' and that the incident was captured on the officer's body camera." Other sources, such as 11Alive note that what happened is unclear from viewing the video, which has also been published.

What may be most clear in the circumstances is an appearance. The code addresses the difficult-to-define and sometimes challenging "appearance of impropriety" standard. Though difficult to define, there is fair warning in this situation for all judges. First, 3:00 a.m. is not a good time to be out and about. An age-old axiom holds that "Almost nothing good happens after midnight." 

That is likely not fair, and it is certainly overbroad. It is nonetheless difficult to remember the last time you heard of a mid-day brawl at a club or restaurant. Whether it is confirmation bias or happenstance, the news does seem to present us with many untoward examples of behaviour after midnight. 

Another clarity is that alcohol can have an impact on the manner in which we perceive the world and the way it perceives us. This is no reason that a judge cannot enjoy a cocktail. However, as Conferences and Consequences reminded us, the more cocktails consumed and the later the hour perhaps the more chance of difficulties.

Finally, there is an inherent ubiquity of cameras. I noted this in Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). If you have not noticed that the world is full of cameras, you need to read more (or watch some YouTube). There is a very high probability that you are on camera any time you leave home. For good or bad, the cameras are always rolling. While you might hope that is not true, it will almost always be true when interacting with the police.

Unfortunately, the challenges for Judge Peterson remain. She is undoubtedly under great stress. Nonetheless, the appearance in the news is not flattering, and the addition of adjectives like "infamous," "controversial," and "notorious" to one's repertoire may not be positive. 

Judges have to remain focused on the "appearance." The world is not fair in this regard. The standard is ambiguous and difficult. But, it is the standard that persists, which we accept when taking the job. That is not fair, but little in this world is. We can lament it privately, but we must remember it and live it. That's good advice at 03:00 in the morning. 

Tweens?

There has been significant discussion of generational change. This blog has focused on the next generation and how their perceptions and preferences may change the practice of law and the world of workers' compensation. See The Donut Hole (February 2023); The Time is Now (April 2022); Positioning Comp (April 2023); It's a Mystery (March 2024). The perception is that the next generation is different.

Differences are a natural consequence of time. This was discussed in Paradigm Shift (July 2016); The Value Exchange (October 2023); and Imaginative Engagement (February 2023). There are various examples I hear cited by lawyers, managers, and other employers. They lament differences in motivation, ambition, and work ethic. There is a perception, generally, that "these kids today" are not what we expected. Many strive not to be that old caricature on the porch screaming "Get off of my lawn!"

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently approached the challenges of the next generation. And, it reminded us that there have persistently been perceptions of each "next generation," youth, and the perceptions of older folks. It reminds us that there have been "transformations in culture, work, education, and scientific insight." It proceeds to take issue with our terminology, and particularly with "teenager" and categorizations generally.

The analysis includes the recency of "adolescence" and the culture of the "teenager." the author reminds that not so long ago the work experience started much earlier in life, whether in the paradigm of a family plot or farm or later in the industrial reality. Certainly, the age of child labor is not so long distant (18th and 19th Centuries). What a change has come with protective laws, and mandated schooling, and it is realistic to expect such change to impact those who live it.

The expansion of education and a growing recognition of the "rights of young people" in Western society has led to a greater role for the young in society. The needs and wants of the young have increased in importance. This has been driven by their desires and their voices, whether expressed verbally in the manner of demonstration or protest or expressed economically in their expenditures and consumption.

The author does not note that this is likely similarly expressed in a broader variety of proclivities, habits, perceptions, and desires. I suggest that the work habits and preferences being experienced as the next generation takes to the workforce fit also into this "expression" of their perceptions, beliefs, and preferences.

Business must be conscious of these changes because the young are both the next generation of producers/workers and of consumers. Business has to learn to thrive with their proclivities in both production and consumption.

The deference to youth seems to have bloomed in the post-World War II era. That is coincidentally an era of increased population, leading to the "boomer" description. The era was particularly noticeable for the efforts of business to cater and market to the young. Economic growth and focus shifted in large part to influencing and marketing to the young. They were less distracted by work, more focused on self, and represented a new marketplace for goods and services.

The author notes that the youth of that era was characterized by independence and even rebellion. There were the fast cars, the wardrobes, and the music. The BBC thoughts reminded me of the legend of a Jacksonville judge who counseled a young Elvis Presley not to swing his hips in his shows there. Yes, hip gyrations were once seen as overly suggestive and untoward. Imagine what that judge would think of the costumes and lyrics of today.

The point is that each generation has brought a modicum of rebellion and change. Experts have written books for the struggling parent. Trends have threatened youth with challenges like substance abuse, unsafe driving, drag racing, and more. Culture has addressed and struggled with growth, development, maturation, and the persistent perceptions of the older generations. And yet, the challenges persist with each new generation.

The authors note that the "teenager" experience of our youth has changed markedly in recent decades. One psychologist cited in the BBC notes that

“A 17-18-year-old in the US is now less likely have tried alcohol, have had sex, or acquired their driver's license, than teens 20 years ago."

The rebellion, I suggest, is in being different from your parents. And the suggestion of the psychologist is more simply that the next generation is simply "growing up more slowly" than some that come before them. There is less probability of dating by early teens or employment. In my generation, it was not uncommon to have a job as a teenager (I had my first at 12, and have been working since - I know "O.K. Boomer."

The authors point at the internet and technology. There are a multitude of potential comparisons regarding how others have changed our lives, but the main point is that there has been a shift in the type and path of challenges (think of the advent of cyberbullying). The hypothesis is that better living conditions, prosperity, and peace have allowed youth to mature and "transition to more adult behaviors" more patiently.

There is suggestion that the modern convenience, comfort, and progress have facilitated a delay in risk-taking, in independence. The psychologist suggests that "by many measures, adolescence now continues until around the age of 24 to 25." This is characterized as "a slower path to adulthood," and is among various "cultural perceptions of youth may need updating."

In recent years, science has also shown that adolescence doesn't finish at the end of the teenage years. By 20 years old, a young person is usually considered an adult: their body size is fully grown, they can vote, get married, and many have already entered the workplace. But the evidence suggests that, by many important measures, adolescence continues until around the age of 24 to 25. The suggestion is that the different nature of "twenty-somethings" may bear reconsideration.

While the focus of the BBC is not in this vein, perhaps that will be considered in the context of the business paradigm above. The approach to this group that is "tween" teenagers and their futures perhaps deserves focus and attention? In the world of recruiting, training, and leveraging talent, perhaps consideration of these perceptions can bring new approaches to the methods of onboarding, coordinating, and transitioning the next generation.

But, the experts say that "tween" has already been coined for the period between youth and the challenges (if any) of the teenage years. So, they propose that there be recognition of this group of twenty-somethings as "prolonged adolescence." I would suggest that no twenty-something will acquiesce in such labeling. Another suggestion is "adolthood," which some will find equally insulting (a "dolt" hood). In the end, recognition of differences is likely more important than labeling. In the end, recognition of challenge and evolution is the more meritorious point.

There is recognition in the article that some will always believe that the "next" generation is being "coddled" or that it fails to appreciate the challenges we faced and somehow overcame (Some of us look at those days of sharing a place and eating macaroni through rose-colored glasses that are blurred by the passage of years). Perhaps every generation thinks the next has it easy, is spoiled, or is unworthy. That is likely the legacy of all that come and eventually pass. What value does that judgment and criticism bring?

As I have mentioned before, the point is that it is the next generation's world in which we old folks must learn to live. We cannot force them to our worldview, but must instead learn to accept theirs. They will persist and thrive as we fade and pass. If that upsets you, just remember these know-it-alls will eventually face yet another "next generation" that will be no less their own Waterloo. 

 

Arrested for Water

Drugs and drug use are seemingly a constant in the news. There are efforts to further decriminalize pot on hand. See Dopey (May 2024). There is also a persistence in press mischaracterization of those efforts with focus on the word "legal." See Edibles and Illness (November 2023) and the posts cited there. It is intriguing to see people face workplace consequences, even job loss, as a result of using dope they erroneously think is "legal." There are legal complexities there that challenge analysis.

In one recent story, NBC News reports a woman was pulled over in Minnesota. That state has "decriminalized" drug paraphernalia. The legislature there apparently sees possession of such tools as a non-issue in the drug pandemic we face. The Centers for Disease Control noted recently that drug death seems to have leveled off for the final tally in 2022. That may come as some relief after years of increasing numbers. And there is some interesting shift between age groups described in that Centers post.

That said, over 107,000 people in this country died of overdose in 2022, according to the National Institute of Health. That is more deaths each year than the total of Americans killed in the Vietnam Conflict. In fact, our drug death rate is approaching an annual total that is double that of the entire decade spent in that debacle of the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon years.

Back in Minnesota, a visitor from North Dakota was arrested with a drug-use tool called a "bong." That device is among the paraphernalia that the state's legislature recently decriminalized. It is OK in Minnesota to have the tools. However, the water contained in that device "tested positive for methamphetamine." There was a residue, essentially, and that meth residue was sufficient for her arrest. In Minnesota, "bong water (is) a controlled substance."

This is intriguing from the standpoint of methamphetamine. The news is not clamoring with efforts to decriminalize that substance, not yet anyway. In time, there will be efforts mounted to decriminalize a variety of substances and meth is a likely candidate. The simple fact is that drugs are popular and therefore populist. People like drugs and the users are making great progress with their persistent efforts to facilitate easier and more ready access to drugs.

Nonetheless, the Minnesota visitor faces "up to 30 years in prison, a fine of no more than $1 million, or both" for that bong water. I can hear the advocates now: "but water is legal." Thirty years? I am no advocate for drug use, but that is a long time in jail for some dirty water. 

What does the story have to do with pot? The Minnesotans have largely decriminalized pot. The residue in the bong was not weed. And yet . . .. The Minnesota visitor was in a traffic stop. The police might never have found the bong or the water ("might") had they not detected the particular and distinctive aroma of dope during their traffic stop.

Dope, like alcohol, remains a problem for drivers. The reasonable suspicion or "probable cause" that stems from smelling weed allowed the police to search the vehicle, find the bong, test for the residue, and seize that "bong water." It is an intriguing outcome. It might have been the same if they had smelled alcohol. That is interesting as our society and tech evolve. 

Technology may increasingly play a role in our safety. I noted Safety is Coming (March 2022) "like it, want it, or not." In the fog of the "other pandemic" (COVID-19), Congress decided that all cars sold in America will soon include passive impairment detectors. More law on the topic came in 2023, and there is a rush underway to put this technology on the streets. according to Motor Trend, Big brother (1984, Orwell, 1949) is coming to a vehicle near you very soon, perhaps in 2026.

These devices will disable the vehicle of any driver that Big Brother decides is impaired. Don't mistake that, I am no fan of impaired drivers. But, I am nonetheless not always a fan of the technology I find on various vehicles I rent either. There are many "features" that simply do not enhance my driving experience and they are difficult to avoid, disable, or manage. Tech is trendy and cool but can also be a real challenge.

When some driver's vehicle stops operating at the side (hopefully the side) of the road, there will be some who conclude that such vehicle status signals impairment. In the coming age of the Big Brother car, being on the roadside may itself become the probable cause for the authorities to search the vehicle for bong water or whatever else they find interesting.

In truth, the interaction a stranded motorist has with authorities today could lead to suspicions, testing, and conclusions of impairment. However, in the many miles I drive, it seems to be increasingly rare to see any officials stop to aid stranded motorists (there is no interaction). I have watched many a deputy, trooper, and officer cruise past people in trouble on the road. 

They are seemingly uninterested in people having trouble. Will they be more attentive in the coming age of smart cars and drug searches? Will residue and water continue to be worthy of arrest and prosecution in the increasingly drug-tollerant society of the U.S.? Does it make sense to criminalize water in a jurisdiction that looks the other way for actual drugs and tools to use them?

How will such devices become involved in the workplace? Certainly, a great many workers' compensation accidents each year involve vehicles. As this new technology becomes prevalent in passenger cars, it will almost certainly become common in larger commercial vehicles. Will there be privacy concerns? Will that be limited to drivers, or might commercial settings involve detectors for all vehicle occupants?

What data will be collected? Most drivers likely do not realize that many cars already have data recorders in them. Some claim as many as 96% of new cars have them. They record brief moments surrounding collisions but are not currently recording audio, visual, or other details throughout a trip (like the aircraft tool). But with the advent of new impairment monitoring, might that potential come to pass in commercial vehicles on the highway and in the warehouse?

How much data will be stored? If your car refuses to start due to a suspicion of impairment, might the car phone home and report it? Might insurance companies be interested in the data? Is there a potential for expansion of the current efforts of some insurance companies to entice sharing driving data in exchange for rate discounts? 

It is likely inevitable that artificial intelligence comes into the analysis of all of these potentials. That tool is a springboard for data collection and analysis. Robots may replace drivers in the workplace completely. If not, robots and AI may certainly impact and facilitate management of the employees who are not replaced by technology.

Things, as they say, get curiouser and curiouser. The world is changing. The workplace will be impacted. The work, workers, and management will have much to digest and understand. 

A Simple Step

The law of unintended consequences persists in various aspects of workers' compensation. There are various instances in which regulation or legislation with a specific purpose drives behavior in a manner that is unexpected and even surprising. Intertwined in every workers' compensation case are complex questions of medicine and care delivery.

An intriguing question of medical care delivery is being pushed to the fore by a group of veteran doctors whose experience in the area of trauma is significant. They are advocating for policy change directed at medical reimbursement and they say that simple changes could have a significant impact on saving lives.

The Centers for Disease Control and NIOSH report significant numbers of workplace injuries are related to trauma and many of those are serious traumas. Trauma is a major issue for workplace safety and these veteran physicians are convinced that a relatively minor change could work to the advantage of those workers and all trauma victims such as motor vehicle accident victims.

NBC News reports that this movement started in Somalia in 1993. Facing an influx of trauma victims, a physician improvised a "walking blood bank." Essentially, the caregivers working on trauma victims each donated a pint of their own blood and then returned to the tasks of patient care. The thought process was simple, to deliver whole blood replacement rapidly in the care process.

Physicians note that the key to trauma survival is in arriving at the hospital alive. The critical moments, according to them, occur in the hands of rescue personnel who are responsible for extracting, stabilizing, and transporting patients to care facilities. They note that in 99% of instances, those rescue teams are not equipped with blood to begin an immediate transfusion. So most communities have yet to embrace this.

But, there is improvement. They note

"In 2016, the number (of locations with blood in rescue vehicles) was zero. Now, it includes 152 emergency medical service agencies in 23 states."

That is significant progress but pales in comparison with the corresponding statistic that these locations account for about 1% of the U.S. Most of us face the significant probability that a rescue unit responding to a workplace accident will arrive without access to blood. Any transfusion will necessarily await arrival at a hospital in those instances, and that will require significant time. Time that might very well save the live and improve the recovery of the trauma victim.

The physicians are critical of the alternative. They explain that it is common for transfusions to be administered with saline. They opine that this is not a valid substitute for blood and that it may do more harm than good. It is blamed for various complications and challenges in the recovery process.

They are also critical of the minimal access to "whole blood" in various trauma hospitals. The NBC article notes that there has been a historical practice of separating the blood we donate into various components. A single pint of donated blood can become various blood products and impact the lives of a number of patients. That is a positive multiplier effect that benefits many in need. Nonetheless, the physicians assert that trauma victims would benefit instead from access to the whole blood, which is difficult to obtain in many communities.

Innovative programs are putting whole blood back in the treatment options in some communities. These physicians believe that their initial and perhaps superficial successes have saved the lives of thousands of patients. They claim that their emphasis on whole blood access is literally returning patients from death's door. The article notes that some of the communities that have made this seemingly simple shift are in Florida, and a success story of a young girl here is highlighted.

The "unintended consequence?" As is so often true, it is accounting rather than medicine. The article notes that most insurance companies will not reimburse for the use of blood in rescue vehicles. The ambulance cannot count on getting paid for administering blood during the rescue so they do not do so. The operators of these services, government or private, are working within budgets, maintaining vehicles, staffing efforts, and managing priorities.

There is a cost. The blood costs money. Refrigeration on the vehicles costs money. The blood is literally a lifesaver, and so there has to be some method of keeping the inventory moving so it does not expire unused in some vehicle. But, these are all issues that have been thought through and overcome in various communities. There are some places where trauma is more survivable than others. Would you choose to have the benefits in your own community, for the workers injured in your business?

In a world where trauma surrounds us, there are opportunities for this simple innovation to improve patient survivability and recovery. The inhibition to better care is partially logistical, but the economic impediments exacerbate resistance to change. A simple step, in accounting, would perhaps enhance everyone's chances of surviving a motor vehicle accident or other workplace trauma. 

If a patient needs this blood, the cost will occur regardless. In today's primary paradigm, that occurs at the hospital after suffering and physical tissue deterioration. In the paramedic-blood paradigm, the same blood would be administered, the same cost incurred, but the timing would change. While logistics would cause some increased storage costs, the incremental expense of this change seems minimal. The potential benefit in patient care seems marked. 

Tough Love?

It is intriguing watching from afar the challenges and tribulations of the Californians. No, this does not reference the state's significant budget deficit. California is experiencing a realization that "2022-23 revenue will be $26 billion below budget act estimates." Somehow the realization in 2024 is that revenue last year was low. Some may struggle with how it takes a year to realize you are missing $26 billion. The Legislative Analysts project that the actual deficit faced this year is $68 billion. Dirkson, huh?

What is the purpose of government? Some would say to provide security. Others might say to regulate behavior. Some might say that it is public safety. This is not new, I questioned the purpose of government in Purpose (October 2023). I wrote about the plans there to deploy law enforcement robots with the capacity of lethal force. See These are the Good Old Days (December 2022). I have written about California often and noted the seeming exodus of people from there to other jurisdictions. See Harmless (January 2024).

The news recently noted that there is a plan in California to strive to address its investment in individuals. USNews reported that those receiving state money will perhaps face some hurdles regarding their use of controlled substances. San Francisco says it will start "screening" people who receive "cash benefits." They are looking for those using "illegal drugs." The press, again, stresses erroneously that "legal" marijuana is included in this. Dope, Marijuana, Weed, and Grass have been mentioned here before, search those words in the box above.

The proposal and plan is to screen the cash recipients. But, there is rapid reassurance that "No one will be forced to undergo substance abuse treatment, nor will anyone be subject to drug testing." No, San Francisco will simply begin asking a 10-question drug abuse test." If that questionnaire indicates Addiction, then the person "will be referred to treatment." If they fail to attend, they

"forfeit the $109 a month that the city grants to homeless adults who qualify for city shelters or supportive housing, or the $712 a month it grants to adults with home addresses."

The purported foundation for the plan is to prevent public "money from being used to buy illegal drugs." The secondary reason is "to dissuade drug seekers from moving to San Francisco." The city denies any punitive intent and explains instead it is trying to save lives. It turns out that drugs can kill people. See A Vaccine Against Getting High (January 2023) and some of the posts referenced there. Yes, it turns out that drug use can be dangerous.

The city is getting criticism. Drug treatment providers are critical that the plan affects a "coercive, punitive effect.” The thought is that cutting off someone's public assistance might be a detriment. They assert that instead those who enter treatment should be rewarded with more public money. It is a classic revival of the old "carrot" versus "stick" debate. However, in no case will anyone be denied their place in public shelters due to honesty on the questionnaire.

That is a critical point. There will be no drug testing. Is it possible that someone might be less than forthcoming in the screening process? If you say you are using, and refuse to get rehabilitation, you lose $109 to $712 per month. If you lie and say you are not using, the city will continue to pay you. As the narrator asked in Cat in the Hat (Universal Pictures 2003) "What would you do if your mother asked you?"

The fact is that some perceive the situation in San Francisco to be grim. They describe people "splayed" on sidewalks. They complain of aromas of human waste. There are concerns of fentanyl, homelessness, sanitation, and more. As to sanitation, they recently bought a single, solitary $1.7 Million Toilet (April 2024). 

The land of milk and honey has seemingly devolved into one of feces, used needles, and tragedy. See Purpose (October 2023). There is untidiness, avoidance, and even overdose. There are even allegedly "drug tourists" who come to enjoy the wretched excess enabled and encouraged by what used to be a tourist city of sights, sounds, and tastes. Yes, there was a time when this city was beautiful and tourists flocked here. 

The public spectacle of today is sufficient to inspire volunteer efforts. The Associated Press reported in May that volunteers in special vests literally walk the sidewalks of the Tenderloin District each day warning the sidewalkers “School time. Kids will be coming soon.” They traverse the "50-block neighborhood that’s well-known for its crime, squalor, and reckless abandon." Then, the same volunteers escort children through this Third-World spectacle to and from school and other activities.

What is the purpose of government? The AP story refers to this as a "rich neighborhood" and a "vibrant community." Despite that praise, it notes that the area is "Long known for its brazen open-air drug markets, chronic addiction, mental illness, and homelessness." Long known? So the challenge is apparent? Children dwell there? So the impact is apparent? The solution is to warn the sidewalkers that children can see them?

Perhaps those with drug problems will be frank on the city's new screening. Maybe they will go quietly into rehabilitation in exchange for the public money. Perhaps they will continue to splay on the sidewalks while the next generation is escorted past the filth and spectacle. It is intriguing. Despite those who criticize the city's action, others may wonder if it will produce any change at all. 

Responsibility and Professionalism

Increasingly, parties to workers' compensation proceedings are not taking their responsibility for documentation seriously. The mediation process has been a part of workers' compensation in Florida since 1989. It was a "soft-open" and certainly started slowly. Acceptance was anything but unanimous and rapid. But, by 1991, it was known and growing. In 1994, it became mandatory. Thirty years hence, there is not a lawyer in the practice that has not mediated.

Every petition that enters the OJCC system is scheduled for a mediation. That is the "mandatory" part. If the case is scheduled for a mediation when the petition arrives, the new filing will be part of that mediation. If none is currently scheduled, one will be set.

No, the OJCC computer system will not check to see if a particular date and time is convenient for all parties. Yes, there will be potentials for any lawyer to be double booked on a particular date and time (or triple). Why? Because it would be challenging to check and there are many, many cases in which two or more lawyers have filed notices of appearance for a party.

Multiple lawyers in a case for one party is good lawyering. It is redundancy and team dynamic. But, the system cannot discern which of the three lawyers might be intending to cover a mediation. Would we check for conflicts for all three lawyers for a particular party? There are also some firms that file every pleading under the firm owner's name. The lawyer who appears for mediation in those instances has sometimes not even filed a notice of appearance. Checking would be difficult, and because of these challenges it would be less than fruitful in many instances.

When a petition arrives, however, there is a brief window before the notice issues (about 40 days). In that period, the parties can see the mediation on the case scheduled in eJCC. That is the time, while the mediator's schedule remains somewhat fluid, for the parties to coordinate a date and time that does work for them. That is the solution to calendar conflict. It is not automated, but it is so very easy.

There are complaints at times that a judge issues a notice for a hearing or a "status conference" on a date/time when something is already scheduled for an attorney. No, the judge is not intentionally complicating the lawyer's schedule. The judge and staff cannot search the database to see when you are or are not available for a hearing. For that matter, no one can explain the purpose of a "status conference."

That will remain a mystery forever. Parties seek relief and judges consider relief. When parties are confused as to how they should proceed in a matter, they should consult each other. They should file motions when they need relief, and judges should adjudicate them. The process is exceedingly simple. Motions, hearings, orders. The hand-holding of "status conferences" might be appropriate in an exceedingly small number of situations and always because the judge instigates the process.

In any event, the judge is not able to tell when parties are available for a hearing. Certainly, the judge's staff should coordinate hearing times (not trial or pretrial times) when possible. But, it is on the parties, when a notice of mediation or hearing is received, to check for calendar conflicts. In the event of a conflict, it is on the party facing such a challenge to either arrange coverage by another lawyer or (1) contact opposing counsel, (2) jointly conference with the judge's staff, and (3) coordinate some accommodation for the conflict.

Hint: often when the judge schedules a hearing there is a patent reason. One might consider "why is the judge scheduling this hearing?" Review of the pending motion, stipulation, or your response might be instructive. Possibly, you and opposing counsel might sort the issue, file a new document, and avoid the hearing altogether. Or, you can wait, attend the hearing, and say "Judge, I don't know why we are here." We hear that often. It is not such a good look. It rarely means the lawyers cannot see the issue, and more often means they have not looked for the issue. 

There are examples of lawyers missing mediations, hearings, and the curious "status conference." That generally results in an order to show cause (which is merely the judge's tool to ask "why"). The lawyer then files a response that says "I was not competent to notice the conflict in advance" or "I was not diligent in managing my calendar" or "I simply do not care."

No, no one ever says those things. Instead, it is a two-page dissertation that strives to avoid the implications or consequences of missing the event. It is dressed up in fine language and apology. But, make no mistake, the meaning is often essentially one of those numbered above. Missing the event, failing to notice in advance, and failing to communicate and coordinate, are all unprofessional, regrettable, and inappropriate. Such actions may contribute to your reputation and perceptions of your ability.

If the scheduled mediation will not occur, then cancellation will occur through filing of a written document. This is in Rule 60Q6.110 (4):

"If the parties resolve all issues, or all issues except for attorney’s fees, prior to the scheduled mediation conference, the attorney or unrepresented claimant who has filed a petition for benefits shall file a pleading in order to cancel the corresponding mediation. The pleading must be filed prior to the scheduled mediation and shall indicate the manner in which each issue was resolved. The preparation and filing of this pleading are not the responsibility of the mediator." (Emphasis added).

This is specific to mediation: "prior to the scheduled mediation." If the mediation is not to occur, file a notice of resolution. That is reasonably simple. The responsibility is on the petition filer. The petitioner asked for relief, instigated the process, and is now saying it is not needed. That is the party who shall (1) file a pleading, (2) prior to the mediation, and (3) indicate the manner in which each issue was resolved.

Alternatively, the person filing the petition may dismiss the petition. In many instances, that action would be more rapid and easier. However, the decision in that regard belongs to the filer of the petition.

But what if mediation does occur? Then the Rule to follow is 60Q6.110(5)(b):

"Any person attending mediation virtually shall provide an e-mail address for use in exchanging documents during the mediation. Any mediation, except when the outcome is an impasse, is not concluded until the signed agreement report is returned to the mediator. The signed agreement report shall be returned within 72 hours unless excused by the mediator." (Emphasis added).

This rule is specific and deceptively simple. The old saying is "it ain't over til its over" (Yogi Berra). The mediation is not over until the mediation report is (1) signed, and (2) returned to the mediator. This is exceedingly simple. No, there is no provision for ignoring the mediator or failing to return the report. No, filing a "notice of resolution" does not change that (1) mediation is ongoing, and (2) is not over.

Yes, it is absolutely unprofessional and rude to fail to return the mediation report to the mediator. Yes, the mediator has better things to do that repeatedly follow-up with the parties to get the agreement. Yes, making the mediator or staff or opposing counsel call you a dozen times over thirty days is irresponsible, unprofessional, and inappropriate. Yes, we will all make mistakes and have shortcomings. But, correcting that on the first follow-up call or email is the solution (OK, on the second call in exceedingly exceptional and rare instances).

No, there is no provision for filing a "notice of resolution" after the mediation. That "notice" provision is for "prior to the scheduled mediation conference." Once the mediation has occurred, the process is not about some "notice," it is about signing and returning the mediation report. The mediator has worked hard to conduct and document the mediation. The rule requires you to sign and return the report. The deadline is 72 hours (which is three days, and which is extended if the 72'd hour falls on a weekend or holiday). These are neither onerous or mysterious requirements. 

In the end, all of this comes down to some simple points. First, professional lawyers are expected to be responsible, to pay attention, and to notice problems with scheduling. They are expected to communicate and seek relief when there are conflicts. They are expected to follow the rules, both "prior to the scheduled mediation" and after a mediation actually occurs.

It is troubling to see lawyers failing to appear at scheduled events. It is disappointing to hear some of the convoluted expositions that take pages to say "I was not paying attention." It is inappropriate for mediators to spend days (weeks) repetitively contacting parties for the signed mediation agreement. It is not enough, after mediation, to file a notice of resolution. Doing so abandons responsibility and leaves the mediator waiting, wondering, and frustrated.

Fortunately, this post is not written for most lawyers. It is my hope, however, that mediators, judges, and lawyers will have this post at their fingertips to forward to other attorneys. Perhaps, if you are reading this, you have frustrated someone somehow?

Obesity Death

There are famous people in this world and they attract attention, for better or worse. The events in their lives can serve as ready examples because the press will spread the word of their achievements and failures. They draw attention, for whatever reason. 

A 47-year-old singer passed away recently. The headline caught my eye because she died of obesity. I have struggled with the seemingly growing tendency to refer to fat as a disease. It seems more congruent that fat is a result or a choice. If you take in more calories than you use in a day, you will gain weight. If you burn more than you take in, you will lose weight. I struggle with this being calculus. I am striving to understand the recent trend of labeling it a disease. 

The actual language used in the report is that she "died of complications from class III obesity." That is somewhat complex. Obesity comes in classes. That itself is not news, but the manner in which this story proclaims it is not common. It is simply novel for a headline to proclaim that fat caused death. More frequently, the conclusion is that weight causes or aggravates health conditions that cause death. 

This story draws back to Body Mass Index (BMI), and the questions it raises. See How Can They Both Increase (February 2019), Monetary Costs of Obesity (December 2021); The BMI Conundrum (February 2022); Flying Disappointment and a Lawsuit (December 2022), and most recently Obesity- a Better Definition (June 2024). BMI is ubiquitous, imperfect, and criticized. 

Nonetheless, it is the predominant standard that we use, despite its many critics. The main reason is likely its simplicity. With a scale and a tape measure, anyone with the internet or a calculator can determine if someone is obese. 

Through definition, you can also determine how obese someone is. The recent article provides the following definitions from the Cleveland Clinic. 

Class I obesity: BMI of 30–34.9 

Class II obesity: BMI of 35–39.9 

Class III obesity: BMI of 40 kg/m² or higher

Those are definitions, but they could be more helpful. The National Institute of Health has some handy charts for putting that in context. It depends on height and weight. For example, someone 6 feet tall (140 to 184 is "normal") would have to be over 294 pounds to be "Class III," which used to be labeled "morbidly obese." If the person is 5 feet 4 inches, then that threshold is 232 pounds (110-145 is "normal"). The crux here is that fat kills. The article strives to insinuate that many die of being fat.

That is not really supportable from the points made. The data supplied more readily supports that "cardiometabolic diseases like hypertension, stroke, and diabetes" kill many people. More simply, heart disease and cardiovascular issues kill many people. The chances of developing these health issues increase with increased fat in the body. This is true regardless of the source of fat, and the article strives to emphasize its theme of fat as a disease. 

This vernacular and perspective change is for emphasis on treating fat and more critically on insurance treating fat. It is a characterization effort, a propaganda, to free the individual of responsibility. It excuses the overindulgence in calories and under-engagement in activity and labels their result "disease." It is an effort to normalize treatment and drugs as a solution to overconsumption of calories and under-exertion of activity. The authors want to convey that there is no fault for fat, that it simply happens. That is an unfortunate characterization. 

Is cigarette smoking a disease? Is drug use a disease? Certainly, some arguments can be made that either could result from addiction, which is accepted as a disease. Addiction is a diagnosis, and possible it can be treated. But the (over) use of a substance does render the result a disease; drunk is not a disease; high is not a disease; speeding is not a disease. Like fat, they are each results of consumption. That is not to say that the compulsion to consume could not be an emotional challenge that could be treated. But drunk is still not a disease, it is an effect of overconsumption. 

The math is not complex. To attack fat, consume fewer calories and increase activity. Either will help. Both together will work more rapidly. It is not easy, our worlds are full of temptation and antagonists. People not fighting the battle will bring doughnuts to the office. Restaurant workers will ply us with dessert options and other temptations. Too many of us will grab a corn-syrup-laden soft drink, energy drink, or worse. 

But, in the end, it is a personal choice to consume or not consume. Whether you buy into the definitions of obese, the categories of obese, the criticisms of BMI, or the "disease" label that facilitates, enables, and normalizes drug use, the math remains the same. Consume less, move more. It is math, but it is not calculus. 

And, it can be a journey. The singer who recently passed touted weight loss efforts. She enjoyed weight loss successes. She decried diets and advocated for life change. She recognized the threat of fat and she campaigned against it. Nonetheless, she died at 47.

Certainly, the singer's passing is tragic. But she did not die of obesity. Whatever caused her death was likely accelerated, aggravated, or exacerbated by body mass. There are a multitude of things that can go wrong with the body. While obesity is not easy to address, it is one of the few symptoms, factors, or aggravations that we can actually attack ourselves, that we can attack holistically. Drugs are necessary for a variety of medical conditions, but not needed to address fat. 

That said, there is room for reform. Where can efforts rationally start? In a world of increasing obesity, the time has come for any program that supports, enhances, or provides food to exclude the challenges. Simply stated, if the government is paying for someone's food, that should never include sugary drinks, candy, cookies, chips, and other such irritants. Food subsidy programs should be limited to the necessities of life - proteins, vegetables, and fruit.

In allowing poor food purchases, government money is wasted. Tax dollars are wasted. Fat results. A great many of those people will then consult doctors or visit hospitals for the predictable complications and ailments to which fat contributes such as diabetes, heart disease, and more. Tax dollars (that is taxpayer's money) is buying the cause (chips, candy, soda) and then having to treat the result. 

In that vein, the government has long been complicit in the failings of many. And, it is getting worse.  In April 2024, rather than moving such programs toward health, there was a pronouncement that EBT cards (formerly food stamps) can now be used at restaurants. There are those who do not see a connection between prepared food and obesity, but those caloric encounters are not helpful to fitness. Do doughnuts enhance health? Does it make any more sense for EBT to be spent on french fries and milkshakes than on candy and chips?

Obesity is not a disease. It is an aggravating factor in many maladies and can be a predisposing factor as well. It can be changed by any person who chooses to change the math on either calorie intake or calorie burn. Programs that provide sustenance should be constrained and designed to prevent consumption of the high-calorie, minimal-nutrition, fat-causing products. It is anachronistic to do otherwise, and the results are troubling. 

Mourn the singer. Know that the day she died of "complications" thousands more just like her did as well. They did not make the national news for their weight loss efforts or their passing. They were not famous, rich, or Internet-famous. But they were every bit as important as the singer, and everyone is capable of preventing such deaths.