Columbus OKs funding to fight domestic violence
Monday, the city council authorized $345,130 from the general fund to keep the Advocacy Crisis Team for Domestic Violence (ACT-DV), a partnership between Columbus police and Nationwide Children's Hospital's Center of Family Safety and Healing.
City leaders hope the money will help expand the program.
How ACT-DV works is when police respond to a domestic violence situation, they will call advocates with Nationwide Children's Hospital to the scene to focus on the victims.
'When surveyed officers shared their confidence in ACT-DV and saying the partnership provides a better response in producing results for victims than other programs,' Dr. Joanne Lunceford, deputy director of the Office of Violence Prevention, said at Monday's Columbus City Council meeting.
This allows the Office of Violence Prevention to enter a one-year contract with the center. The money will keep the partnership going between the police department and the hospital instead of having to outsource for advocates.
'Expanding ACT-DV services would provide the opportunity to continue building trust and safe options for some of our most vulnerable community members,' Lunceford said.
At Monday's meeting, Lunceford said the hope is to bring on more advocates, having one for each police zone.
ACT-DV started as a pilot program in 2023. Nationwide said it expanded in 2024 and is now fully available in two zones of the city, but can be available in all areas if called.
Once the scene is secured, advocates will arrive. This frees police to focus on the investigation while the advocate can focus on helping the victim.
'Our goal is to get out to make sure that person feels grounded at a very chaotic and confusing time, then we work alongside officers knowing we have a different role,' Amber Howell, a clinical supervisor for the Center for Family Safety and Healing, said.
City leaders declared domestic violence an emergency, saying the program has been extremely helpful but noting difficulties with staffing.
The ordinance will officially take effect once signed by Mayor Andrew Ginther.
The team responded to more than 220 calls in 2024.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Labour Can't Decide What It's Doing With The Internet
Labour seems to be in two minds over how to handle the internet. While Keir Starmer's comms team is now briefing influencers on government policies, his ministers are cracking down on harmful online content – and facing accusations of mass censorship at the same time. On Thursday afternoon, the prime minister will be hosting a reception for up to 90 influencers in Downing Street, who reportedly have a combined following of a quarter of a billion followers and have already been chatting to No.10 over the last year. Invitees allegedly include cookbook author Chetna Makan and former Love Island contestant now anti-revenge porn campaigner Georgia Harrison, along with other TikTok stars and YouTubers. This move has been criticised and praised in equal measure. While a handful of online users claim no serious influencer would want to be associated with this government, some political pundits claim it is a sign that Downing Street is finally getting with the 21st Century. And that may be true: Ofcom recently found 82% of 16 to 24-year-olds use social media for news, along with 28% of people aged over 55. This online-first attitude also seems to be rewarding their largest electoral threat, Nigel Farage, who has 1.3 million followers on TikTok and is currently leading in the opinion polls by a healthy margin. But, at the same time, the government has just rolled out its Online Safety Act, rather undermining their new approach to the web, as critics have pointed out. Meant to protect children by putting age restrictions on various sites, the legislation has created an uproar in some quarters over fears it would create mass censorship and political debate – while also making it harder to monitor online risks for kids. That's because there's been a huge uptick in the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow people to circumvent the age restrictions by masking a user's identity. Data from the Age Verification Providers Association also found an additional five million online age checks a day are being carried out because of the new legislation. Fears that the Act is too broad and vague in its definitions of 'harmful content' have fuelled further concerns that it will force adults to share personal data with global porn sites – paving the way for mass data breaches in a dangerous overreach. Then there's the ramifications that come with putting up barriers online. Starmer even had to laugh off warnings from Donald Trump earlier this week over fears the new law would limit access to his website, Truth Social. Reform UK have leapt on the opportunity to attack Labour, claiming it would completely tear up the legislation – although the party has confirmed it has no new ideas to protect children from the worst corners of the internet. Still, their debate spiralled out of control when the technology secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage's criticism indicated he would have been on the same side as the late prolific sexual predator Jimmy Savile. The Reform UK leader has since asked for an apology. Of course, plenty of people are in favour of the legislation, which has been quietly worked on by successive governments. The suicide prevention group, the Molly Rose Foundation, noted: 'The Online Safety Act will help save young lives.' The organisation's CEO Andy Burrows pointed out there has been strong cross-party consensus to protect children online in the past. Scrapping it altogether would actually 'go against what Reform voters think,' he told LBC, noting that more than seven in 10 people who voted Reform at the last election want to keep and even strengthen the Act. Meanwhile, Chris Sherwood from the charity NPSCC wrote in PoliticsHome that 'it's deeply concerning to see the rhetoric around the Online Safety Act shift toward loss of free expression.' The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology told HuffPost UK: 'The Online Safety Act is the biggest step change in children's online safety since the internet began. 'It protects young people from harmful content and holds platforms and tech companies to account. 'This is about creating a safer internet – not censoring it – where children can explore, learn and connect without fear of what's behind the next swipe.' But can Labour really expect a positive reception by using influencers to spread its message while fending off accusations of censorship? Only time will tell if the government can have its cake and eat it too. Related... If You Think Adolescence Is Just About Online Incel Groups, You Missed The Point This 1 Hidden iPhone Feature Could Instantly Make Your Online Data Safer – And It's So Easy To Activate Sorry, The Emoji-Over-Face Parents Might Be Right About Online Privacy
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
A Regulated Trip: What New Mexico's Psilocybin Law Means For Work
Magic mushrooms are now medicine in New Mexico. And that shift could have ripple effects in the workplace. This spring, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed Senate Bill 219, the Medical Psilocybin Act, into law, making New Mexico the third state to legalize psilocybin for medical use. Unlike Oregon and Colorado, which adopted their psilocybin programs through ballot initiatives, New Mexico enacted its law through the legislative process. That distinction is more than procedural. It reflects an institutional shift toward integrating psychedelic therapy into the framework of state-managed healthcare. The law took effect on June 20, 2025, and requires full program implementation by December 31, 2027. With that, New Mexico becomes the first state to create a clinician-administered psilocybin program governed by medical oversight, not consumer access. As psilocybin therapy enters a regulated medical model, employers must now examine how psilocybin intersects with workplace safety, disability accommodation, and drug policy enforcement. Psilocybin's Reintroduction as Medicine Psilocybin is a naturally occurring psychedelic compound found in certain mushrooms. Once ingested, it metabolizes into psilocin, which affects cognition, mood, and perception. Although it remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, psilocybin has reemerged over the past decade as a potential breakthrough therapy for severe mental health conditions. Peer-reviewed research continues to highlight its therapeutic potential in treating major depression, PTSD, substance use disorders, and end-of-life distress. New Mexico's legislation embraces this emerging science by establishing a medical-use program in which licensed clinicians, not dispensaries, administer psilocybin in approved therapeutic settings. The Department of Health is responsible for creating treatment protocols, licensing standards, clinician training, and oversight mechanisms. The Act also establishes both a research fund and a treatment equity fund to expand access and support clinical study. Psychedelic wellness expert Cesar Marin sees the program as a reflection of how far public understanding has evolved. 'We're not talking about the free‑wheeling psychedelic trips of the 1960s anymore,' Marin says. 'We're seeing most states consider or enact some form of psychedelic policy reform, and that momentum helps people feel more comfortable with the intentional, therapeutic use of psilocybin.' Qualifying conditions are narrowly defined to include treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, substance use disorder, and terminal illness. All treatment must occur in controlled environments with preparatory and integration sessions surrounding the administration of psilocybin. Psilocybin and psilocin are removed from the state's list of Schedule I controlled substances when used in accordance with the law, and services provided under the Act are exempt from New Mexico's gross receipts tax. Legal Protections Without Workplace Requirements The Medical Psilocybin Act offers strong protections for individuals operating within its boundaries. Licensed clinicians, producers, and qualified patients cannot be prosecuted under state law, and individuals on probation or awaiting trial may participate in treatment without jeopardizing their legal status. However, the Act stops short of granting any employment-based rights. It does not require employers to accommodate psilocybin use, nor does it prevent adverse action based on lawful participation in the program. That omission is deliberate and significant. While patients may legally participate in psilocybin-assisted therapy under state law, the federal classification of psilocybin as a Schedule I substance remains unchanged. And unlike medical cannabis laws in some states, New Mexico's psilocybin law provides no employment protections, no retaliation standard, and no accommodation framework. Still, employers should not assume the workplace will remain untouched. A New Compliance Challenge for Employers 'New Mexico legalizing medical psilocybin is a huge step toward bringing these treatments out of the shadows and into mainstream medicine,' says Marin. 'When folks see local leaders endorsing these programs, it lowers the fear factor and makes it easier for someone who's curious to explore them.' That shift in perception could soon reach the workplace. Employers may begin receiving accommodation requests from individuals participating in medically supervised psilocybin therapy for conditions like PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, or substance use disorder. And while psilocybin remains a federally controlled substance, the conditions it treats are often considered disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That means employers have a legal obligation to engage in the interactive process when an employee discloses a disability and requests accommodation, even if the employee's treatment involves a Schedule I substance like psilocybin. The ADA does not require employers to accommodate federally illegal drug use, but it does require them to consider accommodations related to the underlying condition. Employers are not obligated to tolerate on-the-job impairment or excuse safety violations. Still, if an employee reports off-duty participation in a licensed psilocybin program tied to a recognized condition, a flat denial without further inquiry could invite scrutiny under disability discrimination laws. Testing vs. Impairment: Where Policy Meets Practicality Psilocybin presents unique challenges when it comes to workplace drug testing. Unlike THC or opioids, psilocin, the active compound after ingestion, is not included in most standard employment drug panels. That means employers may be flying blind when it comes to detecting recent psilocybin use unless they specifically request an expanded panel. 'A person can be actively hallucinating due to psilocybin use and still pass a standard workplace drug test,' says Dr. Todd Simo, Chief Medical Officer at HireRight. 'Psilocin, the active compound, doesn't show up in most drug panels unless an employer specifically includes it. That's why training managers to recognize signs of impairment and providing a clear path to escalate reasonable suspicion are more effective strategies. For employers especially concerned, developing a reasonable suspicion panel that includes psilocybin and disclosing it to employees in advance can also help mitigate misuse.' Given that reality, employers may want to prioritize impairment-based enforcement strategies over reliance on traditional drug screening. While testing has its place, especially in post-accident investigations or in regulated industries, training supervisors to recognize signs of real-time impairment and respond consistently under internal policy is likely a more practical approach for most workplaces. Preparing for Disclosure and Dialogue Employers should take this opportunity to review and, where necessary, revise internal policies addressing drug and alcohol use, workplace impairment, and reasonable accommodations. Clarity around off-duty substance use and on-duty safety expectations will be essential. HR teams should also ensure that accommodation request procedures are equipped to handle emerging treatment disclosures, particularly where mental health conditions are involved. Equally important is creating an environment in which employees feel safe discussing mental health. Psilocybin's path to medical legitimacy mirrors, in many ways, the evolution of medical cannabis and broader mental health parity. For employers, staying ahead of these developments will require not only legal awareness but organizational empathy. The Bigger Picture New Mexico's Medical Psilocybin Act signals more than therapeutic access. It reflects a policy evolution, one where lawmakers, not just voters, are beginning to treat psychedelic medicine as a legitimate part of behavioral healthcare. The state's approach shifts the narrative from stigma to structure, putting psilocybin in the hands of trained clinicians operating under medical oversight. And while the law places no new obligations on employers, it surfaces a timely question: what does it mean to support mental health in a world where the frontier of treatment is changing? For employers, that shift invites action. It's time to revisit drug policies, reconsider testing strategies, and refine accommodation practices. As state-level momentum builds around psychedelics, employers don't need to endorse these therapies, but they do need to understand them. Because in the modern workplace, curiosity can be a better compliance strategy than surprise.
Tom's Guide
a day ago
- Tom's Guide
Will the UK government ban VPNs?
With the passing of the Online Safety Act on July 25, 2025, sites now need to verify UK users' ages if they wish to access content that has been deemed adult. Due to the manifold security and privacy concerns raised by the act, UK residents have started to find various ways to avoid having to submit personal information to verify their age, including using the best VPNs. This is because a VPN allows you to simply connect to a overseas server from within the UK and avoid age checks altogether. However, the rise in demand for VPNs has led some to fear that they will be next on the legislative chopping block – but is there any truth to this? NordVPN: our top-rated VPN overallFrom our testing, we consider NordVPN to be the best VPN for most people. This is down to its rock-solid security and privacy, excellent speeds and great unblocking performance. Prices start from £2.31 / $2.91 per month for a two-year subscription, which includes an exclusive four months free for Tom's Guide readers. Plus, you can get an Amazon gift card worth up to £50 / $50 if you sign up for NordVPN's Plus or Complete memberships. A 30-day money-back guarantee applies to all subscriptions. Due to one of the key features of VPNs being the ability to mimic connecting from another country (see our list of best Netflix VPNs to see what this looks like in action), there is some concern that the Labour government will clamp down on them. Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, stated in 2022 regarding VPNs and the Online Safety Act that "there is a real threat that the use of virtual private networks – VPNs – could undermine the effectiveness of these measures." She went on to suggest that "If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems." In a post on X on July 28th, Champion responded to news of VPNs topping App Store charts by saying "I did warn the last government this would happen." Despite this, the Labour government does not appear to be considering banning VPNs. While Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, stated via X that those that oppose the Online Safety Act are "on the side of predators," he also told Sky News that there were currently no plans to ban VPNs. He did, however, state that he would be looking "very closely" at their use as, according to Kyle, 'the vast majority of adults in [the UK]' were abiding by the Act's guidelines. Were the UK to attempt to ban VPNs, it would join the likes of China, Iran, and Turkmenistan, among others, all of whom have either banned or restricted the use of VPNs due to their ability to circumvent censorship and content restrictions. However, it is still possible to access VPNs in these countries, despite the attempted bans. Obfuscation using Shadowsocks, or simply using newer servers that have not yet been blacklisted, can allow for connections. Governments are also unable to directly regulate VPN providers that are based outside their jurisdiction. The infeasibility of blocking VPNs has not stopped other countries from trying, however. This can make life more difficult for VPN users, not to mention the chaos that would likely occur due to VPNs being incredibly common among business users. China is at the forefront of internet surveillance and censorship, and has some of the strictest VPN laws, but it still cannot achieve total victory over VPNs – particularly those focused on privacy. Let us assume that the UK government does decide to block VPNs. While this would likely be ineffectual, due to the ability to completely anonymously pay for a VPN with cryptocurrency – or in the case of Mullvad and Proton VPN, with cash – and the level of obfuscation VPNs use to avoid detection, it would still set an extremely dangerous precedent. The UK is already a world leader in mass surveillance, thanks to GCHQ and NSA collaboration. Putting privacy even further out of reach of the masses would be a move that should set alarm bells ringing in all of our heads. The UK banning VPNs is ultimately a fairly unlikely outcome. However, we cannot be certain that VPNs won't end up in the government's firing line eventually. Privacy is not, and should never become, a crime. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.
