WARNING: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW MAY KILL YOU: WHY CALIFORNIA NEEDS FENTANYL-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

The lack of fentanyl-specific legislation in California is causing an overdose crisis throughout the state. This is partly attributed to the potency of fentanyl with low doses often resulting in death. Despite this increased risk of danger, however, current legislation merely lumps fentanyl punishment with the designated punishment for other controlled substances. Yet, these criminal statutes have consistently proven unsuccessful as the use of fentanyl continues to rise and unintended consequences continue to grow. The ineffective management of this threat by our legislative branch has caused vigilante prosecutors to use illegal tactics of prosecution. Prosecutors are now charging dealers with murder, without any legal grounds for doing so, when death results from their distribution of fentanyl. This is true even when fentanyl is distributed unknowingly. This pivot by prosecutors is not only unauthorized, but unconstitutional. This Note demonstrates the need for California fentanyl-specific legislation by discussing sad realities of the opioid crisis. This Note begins by detailing what fentanyl is, where it comes from, and who it affects, before diving into the shortcomings of past legislative efforts. It then discusses the unconstitutional actions triggered by unsettled standards. Finally, it proposes innovative legislation that builds on current federal legislation, correctly targets high-end dealers, and attacks the opioid crisis on all fronts

CHILDREN’S PRIVACY IN XR APPLICATIONS – A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH

In the extended reality (XR) of Metaverse applications, several innovative technologies converge and interconnect to blur the lines between the digital and physical worlds. The seamless operation of XR applications requires the collection and processing of huge quantities of data, including personal data, to give users a truly immersive virtual experience. One of the major intended user groups of the Metaverse are children, who increasingly use XR spaces to learn, play, create content, and engage in a wide range of other activities. This article considers the challenges to safeguarding children’s privacy in this evolving digital landscape and makes recommendations for a rights- based approach to protecting children’s personal information. The article first maps the types of personal data that are collected in the Metaverse. It then identifies privacy risks in the Metaverse and discusses what legal and non-legal mechanisms exist to mitigate these risks. This is followed by a discussion of why children need special protection of their privacy and how a child rights’ approach to privacy protection would operate. Children’s privacy requires special attention not only because they are projected to be one of the main audiences of the Metaverse but also because young users are particularly vulnerable to harm arising from inappropriate use of their personal information. In discussing a child rights’ approach, a particular focus is on codes for age-appropriate design that are emerging in an increasing number of jurisdictions. After considering possible modes of implementing regulation and acknowledging the difficulties of enforcing data rights in the Metaverse, the article makes specific recommendations for the protection of children’s data in XR space

A (LOPER) BRIGHT FUTURE?: HOW THE SUPREME COURT OPENED A PATH FOR DRUG REFORM

We are witnessing a sweeping transformation of administrative law. The Supreme Court has taken aim at what it believes is a constitutional error: the power of the administrative state. All parts of the so-called “fourth branch of government” are undergoing shifts in the legal doctrines governing their structure. For those in favor of a strong administrative state, most of the Court’s new approach to agency action may represent a sinister effort to prevent the making of disfavored policy by the Executive. However, advocates of agency power would do well to remember that the administrative state can be oppressive. No agency may better represent how the “fourth branch” can harm disadvantaged populations than the Drug Enforcement Administration and its harsh regulation and punishment of psychoactive substance use in the United States. The Biden Administration decided to reevaluate the DEA’s approach to the regulation of marijuana, but the problem runs deeper than any one substance, and the Biden Administration’s efforts could easily be reversed. The Court’s remaking of administrative law offers a more permanent solution. This revolution in administrative law comes at a time when constitutional challenges to the war on drugs are unlikely to succeed. The current Supreme Court is unlikely to rule in favor of plaintiffs bringing innovative constitutional challenges to the current drug regime using the Equal Protection Clause, Free Speech Clause, or a newly unearthed freedom-of-thought. Religious liberty claims offer a promising alternative but are unlikely to provide the widespread reform that is needed. The right to use drugs is unlikely to be “deeply rooted in tradition and history” in a way the current makeup of the Court would recognize. If there is any judicial path to weakening the current drug regime, the best way forward appears to be through administrative law