Sunday, May 16, 2021
"Five Decades of Marijuana Decriminalization"
The title of the title for this great new resource page from the the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (which I help direct). The page provides data and discussion concerning decades of state and local marijuana decriminalization experiences. The subtitle of the page highlights a key theme of this new resource page: "Exploring the limited and disparate impact of fragmented reforms." I highly recommend folks check out all the data and original visuals on this page. Here is some of the page's introductory text:
The topic of drug decriminalization has gained considerable attention in the United States after Oregon voted in November 2020 to decriminalize all drugs in that state. While we consider the possible impacts of broader drug decriminalization efforts, it is useful to look back at the five decades of marijuana decriminalization for lessons on effects and implementation.
In 1972, the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, known as the Shafer Commission, issued a report advocating a “social control policy seeking to discourage marihuana use” but asserting that criminal law was “too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in efforts to discourage use.” In 1973, Oregon became the first state to implement the recommendations of the Shafer Commission by decriminalizing marijuana statewide. Ten states followed suit in the next five years: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine and Ohio in 1975; Minnesota in 1976; Mississippi, New York and North Carolina in 1977; and Nebraska in 1978. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter even urged Congress to consider marijuana decriminalization. The decriminalization movement stalled throughout the 80’s and 90’s with President Reagan’s focus on the war on drugs, but the 2000’s brought a sustained attention to the issue with a wave of decriminalization efforts, medical-use and adult-use cannabis legalizations across 35 states, and a rapidly changing public opinion....
By our count, at the end of 2010, roughly only one-third of Americans lived in a jurisdiction with full or partial decriminalization laws. By April 2021, over 75% of people in the United States lived in a jurisdiction that has passed some form of decriminalization or legalization....
These numbers can mask the fact that not all decriminalization initiatives are created equal and that some forms of decriminalization do not ensure significant reduction in criminal justice encounters for marijuana users. Despite the growth in the number of states that have fully legalized cannabis for all forms of adult use (17 states, the District of Colombia and three U.S. territories), residents of 14 states (29% of the U.S. population) continue to be barred from using cannabis lawfully even for medical purposes and many others are subjected to a patchwork of decriminalization statutes, which can differ from a city to city if full decriminalization is not adopted on statewide basis.
May 16, 2021 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Effective coverage of marijuana expungement efforts and work still to do
The PBS News Hour has this great new and lengthy piece about marijuana expungement laws and practices under the headline "As more states legalize marijuana, people with drug convictions want their records cleared." Regular readers know I have long been invested in these issues (see my 2018 article, "Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices"), and I am especially pleased that folks at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center worked with folks at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center to create the national map found in the PBS piece and reprinted here. I recommend the PBS piece in full, and here are some excerpts:
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana over the last nine years, and industry advocates have applauded measures to de-stigmatize the substance and bring major revenue to state coffers. But for people with lingering drug convictions like Michael, the news has raised more questions about what legalization means for their criminal records.
Currently in Virginia, “you have to go through all these hoops and loopholes to actually have an expungement,” Michael said. This may soon change. Like many other states that recently legalized marijuana, Virginia lawmakers included provisions in their legislation that over several years will allow for the automatic expungement of certain marijuana convictions, meaning people like Michael may one day see their records cleared without having to petition to do so.
Such measures signal a broader effort by lawmakers to right the wrongs of the war on drugs, a decades-long campaign by federal and state governments to crack down on use of illegal drugs that also helped incarceration balloon in the U.S. States have begun to legalize substances like marijuana that have disproportionately imprisoned Black and brown Americans over the last 50 years, affecting their access to employment, education and housing. Racial justice advocates argue that state legislatures should not consider legalization bills unless they include proposals to help people easily expunge their records, as well as eliminate some of the barriers to entry Americans of color face when looking for work in the cannabis industry.
But just as states did not legalize recreational marijuana overnight, the lingering effects of the war on drugs are not likely to quickly disappear. Though Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam pushed to make cannabis legal in the state by the beginning of July, for example, many expungement provisions in the legalization and record-sealing laws are not set to take full effect until 2025 as state police and courts need time to update their computer systems and processes.
As a result, many Americans with marijuana charges on their records are currently living in a grey area, cautiously optimistic about the wave of legalization taking place but unclear what it means for their future. “[Politicians] are making strides toward being really liberal and legalizing [weed], and that’s cool, but at the same time I served 10 years for this,” said Harry Kelso, another Virginia resident who served time in prison for possession and distribution. “So at some point, I feel like I deserve some reparations.”...
Pauline Quirion, director of the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) & Re-Entry Project at Greater Boston Legal Services and an adviser to Mass CultivatED program participants, said she thinks it’s a good sign when she works with clients seeking to seal or expunge their records because it means they’re focused on securing a career. She said that the adverse effects of a criminal record are evident from their experiences with the job search process. “Some clients have applied for like 200 jobs and they’re rejected, but they keep applying,” she said. “So you have to have a lot of stamina to find employment.”...
David Schlussel, an expert on marijuana expungement with the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, said recent efforts to pass laws to expunge marijuana records in states such as Virginia, New Mexico, and Arizona signal a greater awareness of the harmful impact cannabis continues to have on communities targeted by the criminal justice system. He said that when states first began legalizing recreational marijuana 10 years ago, they rarely considered legislation that would help people clear their records. Campaign messaging to promote the new laws in states such as Colorado and Washington was usually driven by consumerism and tax benefits rather than racial justice. Schlussel said this began to change as lawmakers began to emphasize the necessity of racial justice in marijuana reform in their messages to voters, which in turn gave it more political capital.
More than 20 states have passed reforms related to marijuana expungement, Schlussel said, with outcomes ranging from automatic pardons for a broad range of offenses to the possibility of expungement for a narrower set of charges. But once these laws are on the books, states could very well face challenges getting a variety of marijuana charges expunged, he added. While states like New Jersey, New York, and New Mexico recently passed bills to automatically expunge a wide range of marijuana offenses from people’s records, others have pursued approaches that are resource-intensive and still include a number of hurdles for people who want their offenses cleared.
In Arizona, where recreational marijuana recently became legal, expungement is possible but not automatic. Julie Gunnigle, who ran unsuccessfully for Maricopa County attorney in the fall, said clearing Arizonans’ records is dependent on the support of county attorneys and the state’s attorney general, making it subject to the whims of politicians who may not necessarily be inclined to clear a broad swath of charges. Although Gunnigle praised the “first-of-its-kind” expungement law that recently passed along with legalization, she added that “it is now going to be incumbent on leaders to find the folks who are eligible or those who are eligible to come forward and file these petitions if they want to get justice.”
May 4, 2021 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Race, Gender and Class Issues, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
"Inequitable Marijuana Criminalization, COVID-19, and Socioeconomic Disparities: The Case for Community Reinvestment in New York"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new report released today by the Drug Policy Alliance and the Public Science Project at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Here are parts of the 30-page report's executive summary:
The prevalence of substantial racial disparities in marijuana arrests is well established. In 2018, New York City Comptroller Stringer released a report documenting how disparities in marijuana policing fall along both racial and socioeconomic lines. This research expands upon that work in two important ways:
1. We explore whether the same disparities occurred in other areas of New York State, including Syracuse, New Rochelle, and Buffalo.
2. We additionally analyzed social vulnerability and COVID-19 rates to assess whether the communities who have been most impacted by marijuana policing are also disproportionally impacted by COVID-19.
New York City, New Rochelle, Syracuse, and Buffalo were selected to present a holistic picture of marijuana prohibition, racial inequities in arrests, and health disparities across the state. The four case studies are all in the top seven largest cities in New York State and were chosen to represent different regions within the state, as well as economic, educational, and racial diversity.
In each city we identified the zip codes with the highest and lowest rates of marijuana-related arrests and compared averages between the two groups on a number of indicators. For ease of reading, we use the terms “high marijuana arrest zip codes” and “low marijuana arrest zip codes” to refer to these groupings. However, there were two exceptions to this procedure. First, due to New Rochelle’s small size, there were not enough zip codes to generate averages, so the data presented reflects the single zip codes with the highest and lowest arrest rate. Second, as the NYPD data on marijuana arrests is organized by precinct rather than zip code, we analyzed the data for New York City by precinct.
Arrests and Race
The analysis suggests that similar disparities in marijuana policing are occurring in New York City, Syracuse, New Rochelle, and Buffalo. In all four cities, marijuana arrests are disproportionately concentrated in communities of color. In Syracuse, which reports the home zip code of those arrested, rather than where the arrest occurred, marijuana arrests disproportionately affect those who live in communities of color. People of color are consistently over-represented in marijuana arrests, and areas with the highest marijuana arrest rates also tend to have proportionally larger populations of color.
Social Vulnerability Index
The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is a measure created by the Centers for Disease Control that uses 15 social factors (e.g. poverty, lack of vehicle access, crowded housing) in order to assess the ability of a community to prevent suffering and loss in the wake of disaster and disease. As it is difficult to assess the numerous impacts of COVID-19 on a community, we compared SVI scores for the high and low marijuana arrest zip codes in each city. High marijuana arrest areas consistently ranked higher on SVI scores than low marijuana arrest zip codes, indicating increased vulnerability during public health emergencies.
Median Household Income, Poverty, and SNAP
Across all four cities, the high marijuana arrest zip codes demonstrate more socioeconomic deprivation compared to the low marijuana arrest zip codes. In each city, the average poverty rate was notably higher among the high marijuana arrest zip codes. High marijuana arrest zip codes consistently have nearly half the median household income of the low marijuana arrest zip codes (except for New Rochelle, where the disparity is even greater). Across all four cities, the average percentage of families receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) in high marijuana arrest zip codes was at least 3 times greater than in low marijuana arrest zip codes.
Homeownership, and Median Home Value
Socioeconomic disparities were also evident in housing. In every city, we observed that high marijuana arrest zip codes had both lower rates of home ownerships and lower median home values than low marijuana arrest zip codes.
COVID-19 Rates and Health Insurance
Across all cities, we found higher average COVID-19 positivity rates among the high marijuana arrest zip codes compared to the low marijuana arrest zip codes. However, it should be noted that we were unable to find data for three zip codes in Syracuse due to the lack of standardized reporting of COVID-19 data across New York State. Even so, the connection between racial and social inequities and COVID-19 has been thoroughly documented elsewhere. We also found that, on average, a slightly larger percentage of people under 65 are uninsured among the high marijuana arrest areas than the low marijuana arrest zip codes.
Despite regional differences, New York City, New Rochelle, Syracuse, and Buffalo demonstrate similar trends. People of color are over-represented in marijuana arrests, and high marijuana arrest zip codes are characterized by larger communities of color and greater socioeconomic deprivation. There is also evidence to suggest that high marijuana arrest zip codes are more severely impacted by COVID-19.
March 17, 2021 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Race, Gender and Class Issues | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, March 8, 2021
"The Problem of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs: The Views of Four Former 'Drug Czars'"
The title of this post is the title of a recent Heritage event that can now be heard in podcast form here. Here is how the event is described:
People driving under the influence of drugs has been a major problem in America for decades, with alcohol being the most common drug used. The recent opioid-abuse epidemic, along with the decision by a large number of states to legalize cannabis for medical or recreational use, has made the problem of driving under the influence of drugs even more urgent. To save lives, the issue must be understood and addressed.
Join us for a discussion with four former White House “Drug Czars” on the importance of this problem, potential new challenges as more states legalize cannabis and more individuals engage in polydrug use, and how the federal government and states should respond.
March 8, 2021 in Business laws and regulatory issues, Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States | Permalink | Comments (1)
Saturday, February 20, 2021
"Goodbye Marijuana Schedule I -- Welcome to A Post-Legalization World"
The title of this post is the title of this recent article authored by Melanie Reid which was recently posted to SSRN. Here is its abstract:
Marijuana has been a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for fifty years. However, the tide has turned, thirty-three states and Washington D.C. have legalized marijuana for either recreational and/or medical use, and it is likely that marijuana will eventually be removed as a Schedule I drug and become legal at the federal level as well. During this transition phase, it is important to reflect on how the criminalization of marijuana under the CSA has impacted the U.S. criminal justice system and the criminal procedure case law that followed.
This article will examine the impact criminalizing marijuana has had on criminal procedure and how criminalizing possession, manufacturing, and distributing marijuana provided law enforcement with ever-expanding tools to detain, search, and arrest criminal defendants. Rarely has a controlled substance had such an impact on investigative tools — from trespassing to search for marijuana plants in fields, surveilling marijuana grows in the area, smelling (by humans) and sniffing (by dogs) for weed at traffic stops, to expanding the probable cause to arrest a particular defendant, marijuana has had quite an impact on the expansion of criminal procedure during the War on Drugs.
There are several lessons to be learned from this failed 50-plus year criminalization experiment, and those failures and successes should be identified in order to make better scheduling choices in the future. After such reflections, this article will examine what life will be like in a readily available, post-legalization marijuana world. While simple possession of marijuana may become legal, the federal government will still have its hand in its regulation and taxation. Law enforcement’s ability to arrest, search, and forfeit drug-related assets may be limited but not to as great an extent as one might think. Due to heavy regulation, law enforcement will still be using its tools to identify marijuana-related crime, such as violations of driving while intoxicated, open container laws, public intoxication, minor in possession laws, possession of large amounts of marijuana, etc. The laws and law enforcement activity in states where marijuana has already been decriminalized serve as a guidepost for a post-legalization world. Living in a post-legalization world will require some changes for the law enforcement community and will cause federal agents to shift from criminal investigative work to regulatory action.
February 20, 2021 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices | Permalink | Comments (3)
Monday, February 15, 2021
On Presidents Day, coalition calls for Prez Biden to issue "a general pardon to all former federal, non-violent cannabis offenders in the U.S."
Via email, I learned of this notable new letter sent from coalition of public policy organizations, business groups and criminal justice reform advocates calling upon Prez Biden to use his clemency power on behalf of certain marijuana offenders. Here is an extended excerpt from the letter:
Thank you for taking a strong leadership position in support of criminal justice reform in the United States. The protests and civil unrest that dominated the news following the murder of George Floyd revealed historic levels of mistrust and eagerness for bold new leadership. Our system is in urgent need of reform, and we appreciate the goals outlined by your administration.
President Biden, we urge you to clearly demonstrate your commitment to criminal justice reform by immediately issuing a general pardon to all former federal, non-violent cannabis offenders in the U.S. In addition, all those who are federally incarcerated on non-violent, cannabis-only offenses for activity now legal under state laws should be pardoned and their related sentences commuted. Cannabis prohibition ruins lives, wastes resources, and is opposed by a large majority of Americans. Two out of every three states in the U.S. have abandoned the federal government’s blanket prohibition and now provide safe and regulated access to cannabis for adults and/or those with qualifying medical conditions. And Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has showcased the important role of clemency in achieving justice and equity with cannabis reforms through his recent work pardoning or expunging nearly half a million prior cannabis convictions.
Criminal histories related to cannabis can be particularly harmful for individuals, despite the change in laws in many states. Convictions can seriously limit job opportunities, housing, and educational options. Long after a person has gone through the legal system, the baggage of the war on marijuana continues to undermine that person’s life and diminish their prospects. It is past time for the harm to stop.
In November 2019, during a Democratic Primary Debate, you stated: “I think we should decriminalize marijuana, period. And I think everyone – anyone who has a record – should be let out of jail, their records expunged, be completely zeroed out.” You now are in a position to do just that through a categorical pardon grant. Such grants are hardly unprecedented. Presidents from both political parties have taken such action when circumstances warranted it. In 1974, President Ford signed a proclamation granting conditional pardons to the Selective Service Act violators who did not leave the United States. In 1977, President Carter issued categorical pardons to all Selective Service Act violators as a way to put the war and divisions it caused in the past.
While the war on cannabis impacts individuals of all races, a disproportionate number who enter the criminal justice system are people of color. On your first day in office, you signed an executive order rightly stating that, “Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face.” Today, the long-term harm of cannabis prohibition in communities of color throughout the country is profound. As we look to solutions to provide healing, the dangerous policing tactics that were developed to execute the war on marijuana, including no-knock warrants and other aggressive tactics, shock the nation and have led us to historic levels of mistrust. When a large majority of Americans no longer believe cannabis should be illegal, aggressive enforcement tactics quickly lose support. A general pardon of all former and current federal non-violent cannabis offenders would be the kind of grand, ambitious, and impactful action that would effectively signal to marginalized communities that their suffering is seen and that the government seeks to remedy their harms.
February 15, 2021 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (2)
Monday, February 8, 2021
"Toward A Rational Policy For Dealing With Marijuana Impairment – Moving Beyond 'He Looked Buzzed To Me, Your Honor'"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper recently posted to SSRN and authored by William McNichol. Here is its abstract:
This paper examines how marijuana impairment is currently proven, especially in states where marijuana has been legalized under state law. Much of the currently used proofs, and in particular testimony of purported Drug Recognition Experts, and some legislatively imposed standards are scientifically unsound and their use should be discontinued or severely limited. It is recommended that development of a valid biochemical proxy for marijuana impairment should be a priority funding item in states where marijuana is legalized.
February 8, 2021 in Criminal justice developments and reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, January 21, 2021
"Ensuring Marijuana Reform Is Effective Criminal Justice Reform"
The title of this article is the title of this new article that I wrote along with Alex Kreit that is now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
In less than a decade, marijuana legalization has gone from unthinkable to seemingly unstoppable. This essay — written for a special issue on improving Arizona’s criminal justice system — discusses how Arizona should best advance marijuana legalization so that it can significantly improve Arizona’s criminal justice system. Now that Arizona has legalized marijuana via ballot initiative, we do not wade too deeply into the arguments for and against legalization or the criminal justice impact inherent in the repeal of prohibition (such as reductions in marijuana arrests and sentences). Instead, we focus on steps that Arizona policymakers and advocates who are interested in improving the criminal justice system can take to ensure that legalization best advances this goal. First, we set the stage in Part I with a brief history of marijuana prohibition, its role in criminal enforcement today, and the movement to enact state legalization laws. In Part II, we turn our attention to Arizona, beginning with a description of marijuana reform efforts in Arizona and key facets of the Smart and Safe Arizona Act. We then provide recommendations for policymakers and other concerned parties about how to ensure modern marijuana reforms in Arizona (and elsewhere) can and should help build a reform infrastructure that could not only ensure record relief to redress past marijuana convictions but also address broader criminal justice issues that historically intersect with marijuana prohibition.
January 21, 2021 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Initiative reforms in states, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, December 31, 2020
"Illinois Governor Announces Half A Million Marijuana Expungements And Pardons"
The title of this post is the headline of this new Marijuana Moment piece, which I thought must include a typo because how could there be "half a million" arrests or convictions to eliminate. But then I remembered how many people bear scars from marijuana prohibition, and sp here is the story:
The governor of Illinois on Thursday announced more than 500,000 expungements and pardons for people with low-level marijuana offenses on their records. The massive clemency and records clearing sweep comes about one year after the state’s legal cannabis market launched. Prior to its implementation, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) granted an earlier round of more than 11,000 pardons for marijuana-related convictions.
The new effort saw slightly fewer gubernatorial pardons (9,219), but an additional 492,129 expungements for people convicted over non-felony cannabis offenses. The Illinois State Police helped facilitate the record clearing process.
Illinois’s marijuana legalization law includes restorative justice components that require the state to proactively expunge certain cannabis convictions — but this development puts Illinois four years ahead of schedule. “Statewide, Illinoisans hold hundreds of thousands low-level cannabis-related records, a burden disproportionately shouldered by communities of color,” Pritzker said in a press release. “We will never be able to fully remedy the depth of that damage. But we can govern with the courage to admit the mistakes of our past — and the decency to set a better path forward.”
“I applaud the Prisoner Review Board, the Illinois State Police, and our partners across the state for their extraordinary efforts that allowed these pardons and expungements to become a reality,” Pritzker, who alluded to the additional pardons in October, added.
Toi Hutchinson, a senior cannabis advisor to the governor, said she is “heartened by the progress we have made towards undoing the harms dealt by the failed war on drugs.”
“We are one year into what will be an ongoing effort to correct historic wrongdoings,” she said. “The administration remains committed to working with legislators to address any challenges to equity and on building an industry that re-invests in our state’s communities.” According to the press release, “the expungement process has been completed at the state level,” but “county clerks are still processing expungements at the local level.”
The Marijuana Moment article concludes by noting some other states that have been working to ensure marijuana reform serves as a form of criminal justice reform:
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) is being pressed by civil rights groups to systematically issue pardons for people with marijuana convictions to supplement the state’s voter-approved move to legalize cannabis.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) used a recently enacted law to grant nearly 3,000 pardons for people convicted of possession one ounce of less of marijuana.
In June, more than 15,000 people who were convicted for low-level marijuana possession in Nevada were automatically pardoned under a resolution from the governor and Board of Pardons Commissioners.
Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has also issued pardons for cannabis offenses.
December 31, 2020 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Criminal justice developments and reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (2)
Monday, December 28, 2020
Update on the state of marijuana expungements in the Prairie State
The Chicago Tribune has this new extended article details the status of expungement efforts in Illinois, and its full headline captures its themes: "Pot legalization was to bring expungements to many with records in Illinois. Numbers so far are low, but more are expected to be on the way." Here are excerpts:
Marijuana legalization in Illinois came with grand plans for wiping clean many criminal records involving cannabis. That aspect of the law was so important that on the eve of legalization on Jan. 1, 2020, Gov. J.B. Pritzker pardoned more than 11,000 people of low-level marijuana convictions.
Yet more than 700,000 cases could qualify for expungement, a process in which police and court records of arrests and convictions are cleared. The process is crucial to giving people with such records a better chance at getting a job, an education and a place to live.
Now, almost one year after legalization took effect, few of those cannabis cases have been cleared. But officials say more expungements are on the way. Under the legalization legislation, Illinois State Police were tasked with identifying by Jan. 1, 2021, those cases that occurred since 2013 that could be expunged automatically. That amounts to some 47,000 cases, Toi Hutchinson, Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s senior adviser on cannabis, said. With the deadline just days away, state police said they would make an announcement about those expungements soon.
In Cook County, State’s Attorney Kim Foxx worked with a nonprofit tech company called Code for America to identify and clear 2,200 cases early this year. But during the COVID shutdown of courts, that process was delayed for months. Now, prosecutors there plan to expunge another 11,000 cases early in 2021.
McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally also went to court to get about 1,900 cases expunged early in 2020. But in general, other counties have not taken such initiative. Some are still waiting for state police to identify which cases are eligible. Lake County, for instance, the state’s attorney’s office knew of only two requests to vacate and expunge records, both of which were granted.
As a result, many people are still paying the price for having small amounts of marijuana that customers now buy routinely at pot shops. On the production side, licensed cannabis companies are churning out tons of the plant, amounts that previously could have earned life sentences in prison.
Now, after months of delays in the process, in part because of the pandemic, advocates are trying to reboot parts of the state’s plan to clear convictions. While only misdemeanor and the lowest level felony cases are eligible for automatic expungement, there remain an estimated 71,000 cases involving larger amounts of cannabis that don’t qualify for automatic expungement but are eligible to be cleared in court, advocates say. Yet very few individuals have come forward seeking to clear their records, advocates say. They blame lack of familiarity with the process by the public, courts and court clerks.
In response, a program called New Leaf is seeking to get people with pot convictions to come forward and get their slates wiped clean. New Leaf brings together 20 nonprofit organizations to help people get through the sometimes difficult process, which can take months or years. The program is being led by Illinois Legal Aid Online, which has step-by-step instructions for people to take part. The effort is being funded by taxpayers through the nonprofit Illinois Equal Justice Foundation.
December 28, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (1)
Sunday, December 27, 2020
Notable NORML accounting of marijuana reform highlights in 2020
I just came across this recent posting titled "2020 NORML Victories," which serves as a kind of year-in-review of marijuana reform highlights in 2020. Folks should click through to see the particulars as discussed by NORML, but here are heading flagging big developments in this post:
Historic: House Of Representatives Passes Legislation Repealing Federal Marijuana Prohibition
Cannabis Retailers Are Acknowledged To Be “Essential Businesses”
2020 Election Was A Clean Sweep For Legalization Ballot Measures
Virginia Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession, Calls For Legalization
Tens Of Thousands Have Their Criminal Marijuana Records Expunged
Vermont Legalizes Retail Marijuana Access
I now see that NORML has this additional new accounting of the marijuana reform year that was under the headline "2020 Year in Review: NORML’s Top Ten Events in Marijuana Policy." Here are the listed events:
#1: Advocates Run the Table on Election Day
#2: House of Representatives Votes to Repeal Federal Marijuana Prohibition
#3: Tens of Thousands Have Their Marijuana Records Expunged
#4: Sales of Retail Cannabis Products Reach Historic Highs
#5: No Uptick in Youth Marijuana Use Following Legalization
#6: Vermont Lawmakers Legalize Retail Marijuana Access
#7: More Seniors Report Using Cannabis to Improve Their Quality of Life
8: Cannabis Retailers Designated as “Essential Businesses”
#9: Studies Show Off-The-Job Cannabis Use No Threat to Workplace Safety
#10: Virginia Ceases Arrests for Marijuana Possession
December 27, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, December 10, 2020
"America’s longest serving nonviolent cannabis prisoner," Richard DeLisi, released from Florida prison
As reported in this AP piece, headlined "Man serving 90-year sentence for selling marijuana released from prison," a ridiculous sentence for a marijuana offense came to a partial conclusion this week. Here are the basics:
While serving a 90-year prison sentence for selling marijuana, Richard DeLisi's wife died, as did his 23-year-old son and both his parents. His adult daughter was in a horrific car accident and suffered a paralyzing stroke as a result. He never met two granddaughters -- a lifetime of missed memories.
Yet, 71-year-old DeLisi walked out of a Florida prison Tuesday morning grateful and unresentful as he hugged his tearful family. After serving 31 years, he said he's just eager to restore the lost time. DeLisi was believed to be the longest-serving nonviolent cannabis prisoner, according to the The Last Prisoner Project which championed his release.
DeLisi also finally met his 11-year-old and 1-year-old granddaughters for the first time this week....
DeLisi was sentenced to 90 years for marijuana trafficking in 1989 at the age of 40 even though the typical sentence was only 12 to 17 years. He believes he was targeted with the lengthy sentence because the judge mistakenly thought he was part of organized crime because he was an Italian from New York. DeLisi said he had opportunities, but never had any desire for that life. He prefers not to dwell on lost memories and time he'll never get back. He's not angry, and instead takes every opportunity to express gratitude and hope....
When the then-40-year-old hipster with the thick Italian accent first entered prison, he was illiterate, but taught himself how to read and write. Now, he wants "to make the best of every bit of my time" fighting for the release of other inmates through his organization FreeDeLisi.com....
Chiara Juster, a former Florida prosecutor who handled the case pro bono for the The Last Prisoner Project, criticized DeLisi's lengthy sentence as "a sick indictment of our nation."...
Rick DeLisi said his family fell apart after his father's sentence. His mother never recovered. His brother overdosed and died, his sister was in a terrible car accident. Rick fled at the country at 17 to get away from the pain. "I can't believe they did this to my father. I can't believe they did this to my family," the grieving son said, describing the reunion like opening up an old, painful wound.
A bit more about this ugly case can be found via this Last Prisoner Project page titled "America’s Longest Serving Nonviolent Cannabis Prisoner Richard DeLisi to be Released After 32 Years Behind Bars."
Interestingly, as detailed in this CNN piece, the Florida Department of Corrections has represented that DeLisi's release was a routine matter:
Florida Department of Corrections press secretary Kayla McLaughlin told CNN that the decision to move up DeLisi's release date was not "related to any action by an outside party."
DeLisi's release date was initially moved up from summer 2022 to May 2021 after an error was discovered on his record, McLaughlin said, which restored 390 days of provisional release credits he was owed upon the start of his sentence in 1989.
Good behavior also earned him "gain time," or a reduction in his sentence. DeLisi had previously forfeited 120 days of "gain time" due to disciplinary infractions. But because DeLisi's last disciplinary report was from July 2005 and because he was 120 days from his new release date of May 2021, he was eligible to have his "gain time" restored, which moved up his release date, McLaughlin said.
December 10, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms | Permalink | Comments (3)
Thursday, November 26, 2020
Might Prez Trump soon give federal marijuana prisoners something to be thankful for?
This new Marijuana Moment piece, headlined "Republican Lawmakers And Celebrities Push Trump To Free Marijuana Prisoners Before Leaving Office," prompts the question in the title of this post as it reports on a notable effort to get Prez Trump to use his clemency pen on behalf of a notable group of federal prisoners. Here are the details:
A group of celebrities, Republican officials and civil rights advocates sent a letter to President Trump on Wednesday, urging him to pardon or commute the sentences of people in federal prison for nonviolent federal marijuana offenses. The letter, which organizers said they adapted from an earlier request after discussing the previous proposal with the office of Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, states that the signatories “strongly believe that justice necessitates the exercise of executive clemency in these cases.”
Unlike the last version, the new letter comes with an attachment — at the request of Kushner’s office, advocates said — of a specific list of 24 people who are currently behind bars for cannabis offenses, including several who are serving life sentences.
Weldon Angelos, who himself was convicted over cannabis and handed a mandatory minimum sentence before a court cut his sentence and released him, personally delivered the first version of the letter to the White House in March. He told Marijuana Moment that Kushner’s office then reached out to his organization, Mission Green, to request that, in addition to redelivering the request, advocates include a list of incarcerated people who they feel are especially entitled to presidentially granted relief.
Those two dozen currently incarcerated individuals include people like Luke Scarmazzo, who was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for operating a state-legal medical cannabis business in California. These inmates shouldn’t have to wait for Congress to get around to enacting federal policy change, and the president should use executive action to pardon them, the letter states.
“You have expressed support for the States’ right to implement their own cannabis laws, especially for medicinal purposes,” the signatories, including former NBA star Kevin Garnett, wrote. “And while there are a number of proposals being introduced in Congress to finally put an end to cannabis prohibition, they tend to lack any real avenue of relief for those who are serving time for selling cannabis.”...
Among the more than 50 signatories of the new letter is Alice Johnson, who appeared at the Republican National Convention and whose story was featured in Trump campaign ads after her drug sentence was commuted by the president.
Republican state lawmakers from Kansas, Maine and Missouri also signed on, as did a former U.S. attorney, actor Danny Trejo, the New Haven, Missouri police chief and former New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Gary Johnson. They were joined by representatives of groups like #cut50, Marijuana Policy Project and Law Enforcement Action Partnership....
It’s not clear how Trump will react to the request for a round of cannabis-specific clemency. His reelection campaign worked to frame him as the criminal justice reform candidate, but he hasn’t proactively championed marijuana reform, has made several anti-legalization administration hires and issued signing statements stipulating that he reserves the right to ignore long-standing congressional riders that prohibit the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere with state-legal medical cannabis programs. Also, despite his pledged support for medical marijuana and states’ rights, the president evidently holds some negative views toward cannabis consumption, as evidenced in a 2018 recording in which he said that using it makes people “lose IQ points.”
Prior related post:
Coalition urges Prez Trump to "immediately being the process of granting clemency to those serving federal time for non-violent cannabis offenses"
November 26, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
Marijuana and other drug reforms have a big night across the nation
Though it may be a bit too early to declare all the ballot initiatives winners, as of this writing just before the end of Election Day 2020, it seems as though every marijuana reform initiative and all the other drug reform initiatives on ballots today are going to pass. Specifically, as now reported on this Marijuana Moment tracking page, here is what I am seeing:
Full marijuana legalization:
Arizona: 60% in favor
Montana: 60% in favor
New Jersey: 67% in favor
South Dakota: 53% in favor
Medical marijuana legalization:
Mississippi: 69% in favor
South Dakota: 69% in favor
Oregon: 55% in favor
Washington DC: 77% in favor
Oregon: 59 % in favor
November 3, 2020 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Criminal justice developments and reforms, Initiative reforms in states, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, October 30, 2020
"Weed, Dogs & Traffic Stops"
The title of this post is the title of this new article recently posted to SSRN and authored by Alex Carroll. Here is its abstract:
The Supreme Court has long characterized a dog sniff as a binary investigative technique. For nearly four decades, the Court has held that a dog sniff conducted during a routine traffic stop is not a Fourth Amendment “search” because it reveals only the location of an illegal substance. Marijuana, however, is now legal in thirty-four states. Accordingly, this Article closely reexamines the Fourth Amendment’s treatment of dog sniffs.
In doing so, it makes three overarching arguments. First, a dog sniff conducted during a routine traffic stop is a nonbinary type of investigative technique in states that have legalized recreational or medicinal marijuana. Second, a dog sniff conducted during a routine traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment “search” in those same states. Third, law enforcement agencies operating in those states must retrain or replace their drug-detection dogs.
Moving forward, the Article further demonstrates, law enforcement agencies will encounter significant challenges associated with retraining or replacing their drug-detection dogs. It therefore concludes by providing law enforcement agencies with ways to mitigate those challenges. At its core, this Article offers the judiciary and law enforcement profession with a constitutional path forward.
October 30, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, October 17, 2020
Call for Papers: "Understanding Drug Sentencing and its Contributions to Mass Punishment"
Though I have noted a few times this recent call for papers over at my sentencing blog, I have been remiss by failing to flag on this blog the paper call relating to an exciting event I am excited to be involved in helping to plan, "Understanding Drug Sentencing and its Contributions to Mass Punishment." So, here is the full call, which is also available as a full pdf document at this link:
Discussion of the “war on drugs” frequently fails to examine precisely how drug offenders are sentenced — and how they should be. Drug sentencing practices are implicated in many fundamental criminal justice issues and concerns. Research suggests incarcerating people for drug offenses has little impact on substance use rates or on crime rates more generally. And, despite reports of comparable use rates, people of color are far more likely to be arrested and incarcerated for drug-related offenses than white counterparts. Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes are applied commonly, but inconsistently, in drug cases and for persons with a criminal history that involves drug offenses. And while states have created specialty courts to handle the cases of low-level drug offenders, the efficacy and appropriateness of the “drug court movement” has long been subject to debate.
Distinct state and federal realities complicate our understanding of the relationship between the drug war and punishment. Nearly all federal drug defendants get sent to prison and nearly 50% of the federal prison population is comprised of drug offenders; relatively few state drug offenders are sent to prison and less than 20% of state prisoners are serving time on drug charges. But data on arrests, jail populations, and community supervision highlight the continued, significant impact drug cases still have on state and local justice systems. The role of drug criminalization and sentencing contributes to mass incarceration, yet mass punishment can look quite different depending on the criminal justice system(s) and the drugs.
ABOUT THE CALL
These issues and others related to drug sentencing will be part of a symposium jointly sponsored by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and the Academy for Justice at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. "Drug Sentencing and its Contributions to Mass Punishment," will take place on June 10–12, 2021, at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law in Columbus, Ohio. As part of this symposium, we invite scholars to submit papers for inclusion in the workshop scheduled for June 12. Accepted submissions will be paired with a discussant who will review and provide feedback on the paper during the workshop. Each paper should reflect on some aspect of drug prosecutions and sentencing in the United States. Participants should have a draft to discuss and circulate by May 17, 2021. The papers will be gathered and published in a Spring 2022 symposium edition of the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, a peer-reviewed publication. Participants should have a completed version to begin the publication process by August 15, 2021. Final papers may range in length from 5,000 – 20,000 words.
Deadline for submission is November 1, 2020. Please submit a title and an abstract of no more than 300 words to Jana Hrdinová at [email protected] Accepted scholars will be notified by December 1, 2020
October 17, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, October 11, 2020
Vermont now on path to be latest state allowing marijuana sales and also to automatically expunge past convictions
Roughly 32 months ago, as noted in this prior post from January 2018, the Green Mountain State became the first state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana through an act of a state legislature rather than by voter initiative (and Vermont was then the ninth state overall to legalize use). But that original law contained no provisions for the commercial sale of marijuana, and it took until this fall for sales to be legalized and regulated in the state (and now Vermont is then the eleventh state overall to legalize sales). This Marijuana Moment article, headlined "Vermont Governor Allows Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill To Take Effect Without His Signature," effectively provides the details on the latest reforms that also include another related criminal justice development (which I strongly believe should go hand-in-hand with any reforms):
The governor of Vermont announced on Wednesday that he will allow a bill to legalize marijuana sales in the state to take effect without his signature. He also signed separate legislation to automate expungements for prior cannabis convictions.
While Vermont legalized personal possession of up to one ounce and cultivation of two plants for adults in 2018, retails sales have remained prohibited. But now with Gov. Phil Scott’s (R) decision not to veto the new cannabis commercialization bill, a tax-and-regulate system will finally be implemented.
Differing versions of the marijuana sales proposal passed each chamber before being reconciled in a bicameral conference committee last month. The legislature then approved the finalized proposal and sent it to Scott’s desk. The governor had been noncommittal about his plans for the legislation — even up until the day before the signature deadline — and had hinted that he was even considering vetoing the bill. But he ultimately gave legal cannabis supporters a win by deciding not to block the reform.
In the conference committee, legislators worked fastidiously to ensure that Scott’s stated concerns about the policy change were largely addressed. Those issues primarily related to impaired driving, taxes and local control. But after the legislature advanced a finalized form, Scott threw advocates for a loop, stating that while he appreciated the legislative process that the bill went through, certain racial justice groups had raised concerns with his office about the extent to which the proposal addressed social equity in the cannabis industry for communities historically targeted by the war on drugs. There was some suspicion that the governor was using that pushback as an excuse to veto S. 54....
In the end, however, he stood out of the way and took no proactive action. “However, there is still more work to be done to ensure the health and safety of our kids and the safety of our roadways—we should heed the public health and safety lessons of tobacco and alcohol,” Scott wrote in a letter to lawmakers announcing his decision. “Further, I believe we are at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history which requires us to address systemic racism in our governmental institutions. We must take additional steps to ensure equity is a foundational principle in a new market.”...
It’s possible that there was some political calculus involved in the decision to let the bill go into law despite his concerns, as his reelection challenger, Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (D), is a vocal advocate for legalization and has raised the issue in recent appearances. Zuckerman stressed in a debate last week that while he agrees with the sentiment that more needs to be done to ensure racial justice, an imperfect bill can be improved upon, and the legislature has plenty of time to finesse the details before legal cannabis sales launch. He also noted that separate legislation providing for automatic expungements of prior cannabis convictions, which Scott signed on Wednesday, would complement the restorative justice provisions of the tax-and-regulate bill.
A coalition of Vermont civil rights and criminal justice reform groups including the state’s ACLU chapter released a statement on Sunday that says while they shared concerns about the limitations of the social equity components of the marijuana commerce bill, they felt it could be built upon and wanted the governor to sign it, in addition to the expungements legislation....
Under the tax-and-regulate bill, a new Cannabis Control Commission will be responsible for issuing licenses for retailers, growers, manufacturers, wholesalers and labs. The body will also take over regulation of the state’s existing medical cannabis industry from the Department of Public Safety. A 30 percent THC limit will be imposed on cannabis flower, while oils could contain up to 60 percent THC. Flavored vape cartridges will be banned. Local jurisdictions will have to proactively opt in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Municipalities will also be able to establish their own regulations and municipal licensing requirements....
The separate expungements bill would make it so those with convictions for marijuana possession of up to two ounces, four mature plants and eight immature plants prior to January 2021 would have their records automatically cleared. Those who receive expungements would be notified by mail.
October 11, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Political perspective on reforms, Race, Gender and Class Issues, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, October 5, 2020
Noting a notable decline in marijuana arrests in 2019 according to FBI data
As always, the folks at Marijuana Moment have lots of great timely coverage about lots of timely marijuana reform topics. But as one especially interested in the intersection of criminal justice and marijuana reform issues, I found this piece from a few days ago especially worth noting:
Marijuana arrests in the U.S. declined in 2019 for the first time in four years, a new federal report shows. While many expected the state-level legalization movement to reduce cannabis arrests as more markets went online, that wasn’t the case in 2016, 2017 or 2018, which each saw slight upticks in marijuana busts year-over-year. But last year there was a notable dip, the data published this week shows.
There were a total of 545,601 marijuana arrests in 2019 — representing 35 percent of all drug arrests — according to FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. That’s down from 663,367 the prior year and 659,700 in 2017. Put another way, police across the country made a cannabis bust every 58 seconds on average last year. Of those arrests, 500,394 (92 percent) were for possession alone.
“A decline in cannabis related arrests is better than seeing an increase for a fourth year in a row, but the amount of these arrests is still abhorrent,” Marijuana Policy Project Executive Director Steve Hawkins told Marijuana Moment. “There is no reason to continue punishing adults for consuming a substance that is less harmful than alcohol. Arresting adult cannabis consumers has a dramatically disproportionate impact on communities of color, is a massive waste of law enforcement officials’ time and resources and does nothing to improve public health or safety.”...
“At a time when a super-majority of Americans support marijuana legalization, law enforcement continues to harass otherwise law abiding citizens at an alarming rate,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal told Marijuana Moment. “Now is the time for the public to collectively demand that enough is enough: end prohibition and expunge the criminal records to no longer hold people back from achieving their potential.”
While there’s no solitary factor that can explain the recent downward trend in cannabis cases, there are one-off trends that could inform the data. For example, marijuana possession arrests fell almost 30 percent in Texas from 2018 to 2019, and that seems to be connected to the legalization of hemp and resulting difficulties police have had in differentiating the still-illegal version of the cannabis crop from its newly legal non-intoxicating cousin.
At the federal level, prosecutions for marijuana trafficking declined in 2019, and drug possession cases overall saw an even more dramatic decline, according to a report published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in March. Federal prosecutions of drug-related crimes increased in 2019, but cases involving marijuana dropped by more than a quarter, according to an end-of-year report released by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in December.
October 5, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 10, 2020
Noticing how hemp reform indirectly became criminal justice reform in Texas
Long-time readers know that my focus on marijuana reform began with, and is still situated deeply within, my eagerness for criminal justice reforms. And though I remain concerned that the marijuana reform movement and broader debate still fails give enough attention to criminal justice issues, I always like seeing new stories of how the movement can have criminal justice reform success even in unexpected ways. One such story can be found in Texas, as reported here by Kyle Jaeger at Marijuana Moment under the headline "Marijuana Possession Arrests Plummet In Texas After Hemp Legalization, New State Data Shows." Here are details:
Marijuana possession arrests fell almost 30 percent in Texas from 2018 to 2019, new state data shows, and that trend seems connected to the legalization of the plant’s non-intoxicating cousin hemp.
While marijuana remains illegal in Texas, the policy change around hemp in mid-2019 created complications for law enforcement since the two forms of the cannabis crop are often indistinguishable to the naked eye. Police have said that, because of this, they can’t consistently charge people without conducting lab analyses of seized cannabis for THC content.
According to data released last week by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), that appears to have led to a significant decline in marijuana arrests. In 2018, there were about 63,000 marijuana [arrests in total] in the state [data here] — and that went down to just over 45,000 arrests in 2019 [data here].
Prosecutors have dismissed hundreds of low-level cannabis cases since hemp was legalized. And state officials announced in February that labs wouldn’t be performing testing in misdemeanor cases, with DPS saying it “will not have the capacity to accept those.” Cannabis manufacturing arrests also dropped significantly since hemp’s legalization — from about 2,700 in 2018 to about 1,900 in 2019.
Municipalities across the state have jumped at the chance to push through local cannabis reforms in recent months. The El Paso City Council approved a measure in May that encourages police to issue citations for low-level marijuana cases instead of making arrests. In January, the Austin City Council approved a resolution aimed at ending arrests for simple cannabis possession. The city’s police department said in July that they “will no longer cite or arrest individuals with sufficient identification for Class A or Class B misdemeanor ‘possession of marijuana’ offenses, unless there is an immediate threat to a person’s safety or doing so as part of the investigation of a high priority, felony-level narcotics case or the investigation of a violent felony.”
A cite-and-release program in San Antonio led to a 35 percent reduction in the number of arrests for small amounts of marijuana, according to data released by the local police department....
Last year, the House voted to approve a decriminalization bill that would’ve made possession of one ounce or less of cannabis punishable by a $500 fine and no jail time, but it filed to advance to a Senate floor vote by the end of the session.
I am not sure the significant reduction in arrests for marijuana possession in Texas in 2019 can or should be wholly or even mostly attributed to hemp reform, but hemp reform was likely one of a number of factors that played an important contributing role. And, as I have highlighted in some prior posts here and here, it will be fascinating to follow 2020 arrest data to see how the health challenges of COVID and the moral challenge of calls for racial justice might be impacting marijuana prohibition's continued enforcement in Texas and nationwide.
But, to make sure an important reality is not lost, we ought not lose sight of the fact that even at reduced arrest rates in 2019, on average well over 100 people were being arrested every single day in Texas for merely possessing marijuana. (And, as we see everywhere, blacks were greatly over-represented among those arrested: though only about 12% of the Texas population is black, over 30% of those arrested for possessing marijuana in Texas in 2019 were black.)
September 10, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Race, Gender and Class Issues | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, September 5, 2020
"Effects of Marijuana Legalization on Law Enforcement and Crime: Final Report"
The title of this post is the title of this lengthy new report, which was made possible by funding from the National Institute of Justice and which digs deeply into law enforcement and crime experiences after Washington state legalized marijuana. The study covers lots of important ground in thoughtful and diverse ways, and here are part of its lengthy abstract:
In 2012 the citizens of Washington State, via Initiative 502, legalized possession of a small amount of cannabis by adults. On July 1, 2014 licensed retail outlets in Washington opened with a regulated and monitored product. The effects that this legalization would have on crime and law enforcement in the state were open questions. In this National Institute of Justice-funded study we employed a mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches geared toward addressing these questions. Research partners and participants included municipal, county, state and tribal law enforcement agencies representing 14 state, urban, suburban, rural, and tribal organizations in Washington the neighboring state of Idaho, as well as law enforcement professionals from 25 additional agencies and organizations. Focus group, joint, and individual interviews involved 153 justice system officials that included sworn officers from three multi-agency drug task forces and one gang task force.... We constructed case study profiles and assessed qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative (Uniform Crime Reporting Program or UCR, calls for service records, and body/dash camera footage) data regarding how police practices and strategies, and crime itself, have been affected by legalization in Washington, and how that watershed decision in Washington has changed policing in adjacent border areas....
We found that marijuana legalization has not had an overall consistently positive or negative effect on matters of public safety. Instead, legalization has resulted in a varied set of outcomes, including: concern about youth access to marijuana and increased drugged driving, a belief that there is increased cross border transference of legal marijuana to states that have not legalized, reports that training and funding for cannabis-related law enforcement activities have been deficient given the complex and enlarged role the police have been given, and the persistence of the complex black market. On the “positive” front, legalization appears to have coincided with an increase in crime clearance rates in several areas of offending and an overall null effect on rates of serious crime. Importantly, the legalization of marijuana has reduced the number of persons brought into the criminal justice system by non-violent marijuana possession offenses. The police were also greatly concerned about how to best handle the detection and documentation of marijuana-related impairment in both commercial vehicle operations and traffic incidents. The state has adopted the Target Zero goal of no traffic fatalities by 2030 and the legalization of marijuana and the privatization of liquor sales have combined to make accomplishment of this worthy goal extremely difficult.
Our research methodology necessarily included a number of limitations that would prevent the wholesale generalization of the results. For instance, most of the data was collected from one state (Washington) which was one of the two “pioneer” states involved in legalization in this country. Furthermore, the calls for service data were obtained from a limited number of agencies and are likely not generalizable to the entire state, much less the country. The crime data is extracted from the UCR database (as not all of Washington was National Incident Based Reporting System [NIBRS] compliant for all years under study) is known to suffer from a number of limitations, including: undercounting of some crimes, a lack of contextual information about criminal activity, and missing incidents not reported to the police. While the calls for service data address some limitations of the UCR database (for instance, calls for service data are better suited for the analysis of minor crimes), these data still do not address the limitation that only incidents reported to the police are analyzed. Put simply, if legalization resulted in a shift in criminal behavior that was not reported to the police, our quantitative analyses would be incapable of detecting it. Similarly, the body-worn camera (BWC) analysis was exploratory in nature and the data represent two agencies that are geographically and organizationally disparate. As an exploratory component, these results are not generalizable.
The qualitative findings of this study offer insight into the lived experiences of officers, deputies, troopers, trainers, supervisors, administrators, and prosecutors, and are not without their limitations. Our qualitative data are limited by issues of generalizability (they may not represent the opinions of law enforcement professionals more broadly) and potentially be issues of selection bias (it is possible that those with the strongest opinions were perhaps most likely to volunteer to participate in focus groups and interviews). As with any research design employing purposive sampling, these results are not generalizable. They do not represent the lived experiences of all law enforcement officers or justice system representatives, nor adequately capture the totality of the lived experiences of this study’s participants.... These results emphasized and sought to document experiences pre- and post-legalization. While we made every effort to restrain our analysis to issues involving cannabis legalization effects on law enforcement and crime, our participants, as reflected in our findings, often gravitated towards broader frustrations involving police resourcing, training, and prosecutorial practices. Lastly, while our qualitative data is wellsuited for capturing the perceptions of police officers, they are also limited in this regard. Police perceptions of legalization may be skewed and not reflective of the broader process of legalization.
September 5, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)