San Francisco just announced that thousands of marijuana convictions will be cleared under California’s Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana and was taken into effect in 2018.
When charged with marijuana possession or usage, convicts are unable to find jobs and receive other benefits and opportunities. District Attorney George Gascon explained how the clearance of over 3,000 people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions and the reduction of 4,000 felony cases will help them find support and employment more easily.
This issue has continually generated discussion around racial inequality — in a 2013 study by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) it was found that “African Americans were more than twice as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as whites, despite similar levels of use … In San Francisco, African Americans were four times as likely as whites to be arrested for possession.”
I agree with San Francisco’s actions to clear previous convictions under the updated law. Evident through ACLU’s study, the number of African Americans targeted, convicted and forced to live under circumstances where they’re associated with a criminal history, as compared to whites is highly disproportionate. San Francisco didn’t take long to announce and apply the new law since it went into effect, and I hope that other cities will follow as well.
How do you feel about San Francisco clearing past marijuana convictions? What’s your reaction to the ACLU’s study? Do you think the city’s response is helping with the inequality problem? Should other cities and states follow San Francisco's actions?
Sources:
10 comments:
On an ethical and moral level, I think this is the right decision. As a libertarian, fact that there ARE marijuana convictions stretching back to 1975 is incredibly disquieting to me. Especially now, as California has legalized marijuana for both recreational and medicinal use, I feel that now is better than ever to pardon victimless drug offenses, especially those that have stretched for over forty years. The only issue that I could see with this is the legal issue. In our legal system, it's illegal for any polity, down to the city and county levels, to pass ex post facto laws, or laws that effect people retroactively. I could see a conservative court (and thank god there aren't many of those in California) ruling this retroactive decriminalization and this massive wave of pardoning as exactly the same or in the spirit of an ex post facto law, no matter how much precedent there is for such an action.
I believe that this is a good decision as past convictions have shown disturbing racial inequalities. While this doesn't necessarily make up for the wrongs and injustices that have been committed in the past, it certainly is a step towards it. I do agree with Granger, however, in that there are some convictions that are not victimless and should not be cleared. I think that this should serve as an example for others to follow in its path, but because San Francisco is a generally liberal area, I do not think that it will be in the interest of some cities that are more conservative.
I think San Francisco clearing past marijuana convictions is a good thing, considering that it is now legal. Keeping people in prison for what was once considered a crime, but now is legal, is ridiculous. I think other cities in states where marijuana is legal should follow suit as well. I agree with Elena, that some more conservative cities, like in Central California, would not want to do the same thing San Francisco is doing. I think this will help with the injustice towards African Americans, and will help get rid of the stigma towards them.
Although I agree with those above about the idea that keeping people in jail for something that is now legal isn't very logical, I do think that Granger is right about it conflicting with legality. Though I disagree that this is similar to an ex post facto (that would be punishing people for something after the fact... I don't think this is really the same), I do want to acknowledge the problems that may arise. California has legalized weed, but as we've heard in class, this isn't a Federal law, and technically the Obama administration turned a blind eye towards the situation. With the situation of those in power in D.C., there is a chance that this may spark more of a reason for the Federal government to make a move against the legalization of this drug. Naturally, this is merely speculation, but if one were to go for the "glass half empty" perspective, it is necessary to account for the negative effects of this as well.
I'd like to add to Ariana's comment about this situation's similarity to an ex post facto. When I first heard of SF and San Diego's plans to remove these convictions, I immediately looked at it as the opposite of an ex post facto law. Instead of convicting someone under a new law for a past crime, this decision would do the opposite in removing convictions for charges that used to be illegal but are now legal. I don't know the name of this type of law, but it is very interesting to think about. As for the decision, in my opinion this will be great for our community. Thousands of people now have criminal record for crimes that don't exist anymore, and this will help improve their lives by setting them back on track to find better employment, or employment in general. As for the federal aspect about the legality of this, I don't think that there is much to worry about. The Trump administration has continuously voiced its dismay with liberal states and cities moving against their plans, and these liberal states and cities have continuously found ways to circumvent any criticism or regulation as much as possible in order to keep themselves as independent from Trump as possible. Also, marijuana should be the least of the federal government's worries when there is a huge opioid crisis gripping the eastern US which has a much worse effect on health and moral. I'm confident that nothing is going to be done about this on the federal level, at least not in the next 3 years of Trump's presidency.
I support SF's decision of expunging marijuana convictions because it gives the citizens a second chance at life. The past records ultimately hurts the people when it comes to applying for jobs. Also, by removing past convictions, it helps the pot industry. When charges are dropped, investors are more likely to invest in many medical pot stock companies. I'm not surprised by ACLU findings because of the areas they live in. If education was avaialable everywhere, then such findings would not exist. I think that the cities in states that have legalized recreational weed should do the same because after all, they have legalized it.
It is interesting to note that even if, as Ariana has already noted, the Trump administration were to try to "crack down" on marijuana usage in places were state and local law have made it legal, they would not be able to do anything about San Francisco clearing old marijuana convictions. All of those convictions took place at the state and local level, and have nothing to do with the federal government. In fact, because marijuana is now legal in California anyone who gets convicted for using it would have to be tried in a federal court, because they have not broken any state laws. Also I just love the fact that although Republicans are supposedly state's rights, whenever they don't like what a state is doing with their power (legalization of marijuana, stricter limits of fuel consumption per mile of new vehicles etc.) that ideology takes a back seat. I am looking very forward to seeing how this battle shakes out over the next three years.
I agree with what San Francisco has done, and a lot of it does come from ACLU's study. First of all, the thinking behind San Francisco's plan was correct because if people have a felony as such on their resume or portfolio, they can be at a great disadvantage although marijuana is now legal. It simply makes sense that SF should pardon these people who shouldn't be held at a disadvantage for something that isn't something that society now accepts completely. As long as the offense was victimless, SF's plan seems perfect to get more people in the work force. Furthermore, ACLU's study really shows how racial inequality was probably the reason why so many African Americans were arrested. A 4:1 ratio is something that cannot be caused by chance. SF's plan on a deeper level is also great because it is showing how the city wants to take steps to diminishing this racial inequality. As for other cities, if the situation is similar they should follow, but a lot of states probably have different laws, so this plan may not apply well.
According to Americans For Safe Access (safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law), the federal Control Substances Act still classifies marijuana as a "Schedule I" drug, which means even a doctor can't prescribe it as treatment for a medical condition. Thus, all the states who have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana (all 46 of them) technically conflict with the federal law. From what we learned in AP Gov, it seems that the federal government should override the state laws, but I believe there is some jurisdictional discretion that I don't quite understand (at all). As for pardoning prior offenders, I, as most people already said, think it's morally correct but a legal gray area.
I feel like it is great news that SF will be clearing weed charges. Petty charges such as these has ruined lives, so it is good news to see that these people could live in normalcy. Other cities should follow this.
Post a Comment