Charleston City Council members have greenlighted a citizen-led municipal measure to reduce local penalties for some marijuana possession offenses.

Bill Number 8039 removes fines and jail time for first-time low-level possession of marijuana. Currently under state law, marijuana possession is a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Corey Zinn, a community organizer for the group Charleston Can't Wait, said the move is a positive step forward for the city.

"We're guaranteeing that if you haven't had another drug offense, that if you're arrested with 15 grams or less, that you're not going to have a fine, you're not going to serve jail time," Zinn outlined.

According to Section 89 of the city charter, Charleston residents can introduce measures to the ballot by petition, an ordinance or amendment with enough signatures. More than 4,000 residents signed the petition to reduce marijuana possession penalties.

Zinn added it was encouraging to hear city lawmakers acknowledge the community harms associated with criminalizing marijuana. According to data from West Virginia University, more than 1,600 residents were arrested in 2021 for marijuana possession or sales.

"It felt really powerful to hear those conversations and to talk about the racial disparities," Zinn noted.

Zinn feels the city is drastically limited in changing drug policies because of West Virginia's harsh penalties for possession.

"There's still this message that this is still a crime, this is still something that you should not do, and I think a lot of people would agree that's not really the case," Zinn pointed out. "If there's not some other crime being committed, then there shouldn't be an issue with this."

An overwhelming majority of U.S. adults, 88%, said marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a survey released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center.


get more stories like this via email

By Kyla Russell for WISH-TV.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the WISH-TV-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration.

The Indiana House has passed an extension to the state's Lifeline Law, sending it to the governor's desk for signature.

The state's current law, passed in 2012, grants criminal immunity to anyone who calls 911 to ask for help for someone drinking underage and experiencing a medical emergency. The expansion aims to also protect the person drinking.

"Currently, the person in need of medical attention is not protected," Purdue University Student Body Vice President Rebecca Siener, a junior, said.

She spent some of her college career as a resident assistant.

"Our students are more fearful of the repercussions of underage drinking than the potentially life threatening condition of alcohol poisoning," Siener said.

She, along with her fellow student government leaders, spent the last year trying to get protection for all parties. She said she also assisted in writing the new legislation.

Siener watched the House pass the expansion in an 87-3 vote on Thursday. It passed in the Senate earlier this session.

"The last step is the signing ceremony," Siener said. "The governor has the option to veto it, but we don't see him vetoing it, and then it will go into effect July 1 of 2025, and we will have changed state law."

The new changes may soon be etched in law, but Siener says she stands on the backs of students who came before her. In 2012, when the Lifeline Law first passed, it was Purdue student government leaders who pushed for the change.

"The former Purdue Student Body President Brett Highley came up with the idea of the Indiana Lifeline Law and having a medical amnesty policy within Indiana and they proposed this to former Sen. (Jim) Merritt," Seiner said. "Former Sen. Merritt agreed to author it."

Purdue students formed the Indiana Lifeline Law Coalition to get the original law passed. It's made up of college students at various Indiana universities united in advocating for the policy.

The coalition still stands today.

"Here we are, 12 years later, trying to expand it," Siener said. "If students could change law in 2012 to save lives, we can do so, and, we will do so, again in 2025."


Kyla Russell wrote this article for WISH-TV.


get more stories like this via email

Next month, the city of Morgantown, West Virginia, will ask residents to vote on whether to keep or eliminate a city ordinance banning camping on public property, enacted last year.

Sarah Hutson, a volunteer for the advocacy group West Virginia Can't Wait, said Morgantown has struggled with affordable housing and a lack of resources for years. She pointed out the city has only 28 shelter beds for an unhoused population of around 150 individuals.

"This is an expensive waste of taxpayer money to just put folks in jail rather than actually provide solutions that would end homelessness in Morgantown," Hutson argued.

An estimated 150 cities in 32 states have passed ordinances aimed at discouraging homelessness, according to the National Criminal Justice Association. The U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the issue. In a 2024 ruling, justices found a camping ban in Grants Pass, Oregon, did not violate the Constitution's cruel and unusual punishments clause.

Hutson added the number of Morgantown residents who came together and gathered signatures on a petition to put the issue on the ballot highlights the momentum against criminalizing not having a place to live.

"It was an incredible force of effort," Hutson observed. "It was also easy, in that most people that we talked to, at most doors that we knocked, were more than happy to sign. They also see that this is not a solution."

Hutson noted groups like West Virginia Can't Wait have continued to push affordable housing and increased services for unhoused people to the top of local city council agendas, statewide.

"To work with our elected officials on city council to introduce pro-housing solutions and ordinances that would help make a difference in this fight." Hutson urged.

Data from the Pew Research Center show in cities across the nation, places where rents increased faster than the national average have seen sharp spikes in the number of homeless residents.


get more stories like this via email

An audit by Allegheny County reveals most public defenders face excessive caseloads and a lack of resources, putting clients at a disadvantage.

It showed 36 of 42 trial attorneys carry caseloads above the national average.

Robert Perkins, attorney for the Allegheny Lawyers Initiative for Justice, said the state has a history of underfunding public defenders, allowing only $100,000 per county annually. But he added it is the first time the county controller's office has reviewed public defense, focusing on areas of improvement in a neglected system.

"On average, your typical public defender, trial lawyer has two or three times as many cases as they should," Perkins pointed out. "You can be the best lawyer in the world. If you have triple the caseload that you should per national standards, then you can't do a good job for every client. You end up having to pick and choose."

Perkins noted while the American Bar Association outlines 10 key principles for an effective public defense system, the recent audit only examined one for both the Public Defender and court-appointed counsel systems. He argued a deeper review would have shown both fall short of most bar association standards. The study also found the court-run indigent defense system violates standards.

Sarah Linder Marx, senior deputy of public outreach and staff development for the Allegheny County Office of the Public Defender, said she is concerned the audit implied clients must meet requirements beyond those outlined in the Public Defender Act to qualify for a public defender attorney. Specifically, she emphasized the audit suggested stricter income verification measures.

Under the Public Defender Act, individuals qualify based on income eligibility and sign an affidavit confirming their income falls below the poverty line percentage indicating indigence.

"In practice, we would be asking people who are already extremely vulnerable to get us documentation that may not even exist for them," Linder Marx stressed. "We don't have software or access to government documents like other government agencies do to verify income like that."

Linder Marx's office also recommended implementing new case management software would greatly improve the ability to manage workloads and provide opportunities for analysis. The current case management software is dated and inadequate, often creating more work.


get more stories like this via email