The Cannabis Control Commission promised in its mission statement “to encourage and enable full participation in the marijuana industry by people from communities that have previously been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition.”
That promise was evidently not on the minds of the three (of five) commission members who voted on Wednesday for the categorical exclusion from the new industry of any person with a trafficking conviction for any drug other than marijuana.
Their defenses of the new ban regrettably echoed a persistent myth about the war on drugs: that the only persons prosecuted and convicted of trafficking are drug kingpins with trunks full of contraband in their Cadillacs.
Commissioner Britte McBride asserted unconvincingly that trafficking “is different than simple possession, it’s different even than distribution. This is really talking about quantity and significant quantity…”
Her fellow Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan joined in: “I think there is a very large difference between someone who had been arrested for possession and someone who has been actively trafficking in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
Let’s review. First, here’s a 19-gram packet of salad dressing mix.
This is one gram more than is necessary to bring a trafficking prosecution that carries a mandatory minimum state prison sentence.
Second, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court has said, in a recent year more than half of the persons convicted in Massachusetts of drug distribution offenses and three-quarters of those convicted of drug trafficking offenses that carrying a mandatory minimum term are members of racial and ethnic minorities.
So how is it that again the categorical exclusion of persons convicted of trafficking will not undermine the goals of the mission statement? Dissenting Commissioners Steven Hoffman and Shaleen Title put up a good fight on this point, arguing that the ban was unnecessary and would create new obstacles for ex-prisoners instead of helping their reentry.
One marginally hopeful signal from Wednesday’s meeting was the comment of Commissioner Kay Doyle (who cast the deciding vote in favor of the ban) that she would be in favor of reviewing it as the industry develops.
It’s not too soon to start that review. If you’re going to today’s Marijuana Summit, take a minute to thank Commissioner Title for her vote against the ban. And if you have time to contact the Commission before its next meetings (March 6 and 7) to correct the misconceptions displayed in yesterday’s vote, please do. You might also suggest that the Commission invest in some copies of The New Jim Crow.
(Here’s a sample text you can borrow or modify: “Please do NOT categorically exclude persons who have trafficking convictions from participating in the new marijuana industry. It is ill-informed and directly contrary to the promise in your mission statement to ensure full participation in the marijuana industry by people from communities that have previously been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition.”)
Hester, I’m not sure I understand your view. If the promise you think was broken involves people who had been “disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition,” why should a ban on traffickers of other drugs be relevant? Also, the mission statement seems to me to be aimed at promoting participation by people from disproportionately affected communities, not by any particular individual convicted of a crime. I’m not sure convicted drug traffickers are good candidates for licenses and such, not because of the nature of their offenses but because of what their criminal conduct says about their respect for the law, which would seem to be important in highly-regulated industries.
I have broader problems with the whole enterprise (e.g., here and here), but I am curious for your thoughts on the narrow point.
Michelle Alexander made a compelling argument that white tech bros and white majority owned corporations will be cashing in on the same product an entire generation of entrepreneurial black men were incarcerated for. If that is not blatant racism, I do not know what is.
So much of what passes as tough on crime and tough on drugs legislation and rhetoric in this country is a code switch for incarcerating black men. Time to let these low level marijuana dealers resume their now entirely legal trade in the light of day on an equal basis with the Silicon Valley startups that are already cornering the market. Once again, our Commonwealth is going out of its way to implement a reasonable law in the most unreasonable manner possible.
Okay, but we’re not talking about “low level marijuana dealers,” right? Unless I’ve misunderstood, the reference is to traffickers in drugs other than marijuana.
We’re talking about urban residents who are busted with crack.
The laws are written so that suburban residents who possess or sell to their friends similar amounts of more-expensive cocaine are not prosecuted.
The racial disparity is well-documented and has been discussed here at great length.
Hi Ted – thanks for writing. Here are some quick thoughts back.
The mission statement refers to “communities” that have been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition, not simply individuals within those communities. Those communities are the same communities that have also been harmed by the other aspects of the failed war on drugs, including the racially disparate imposition on their members of mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and the inclusion in the definition of “trafficking” of a quantity of drugs that a person suffering from addiction might possess.
The people on whom these sentences have been imposed (who are statutorily ineligible for any rehabilitation programs while incarcerated) return to their communities essentially without job prospects because they must wait for 10 years before becoming eligible to seal their criminal records. They also face monthly probation or parole fees that their friends and families, who are poor themselves, often have to pay to keep them out of jail again. It’s a vicious cycle that makes returning to drugs either because of addiction or because of the need to secure some income understandable (if, as you suggest, not laudable). Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz has spoken of neighborhoods in her district in which every household has been affected in some way by the drug war.
The marijuana law that was passed by the voters calls for the commission not only to mitigate the harm to these communities but also to “positively impact” them. It is unfortunate that the commission left that mandate out of its mission statement. It is much more unfortunate that the commission voted for a categorical exclusion of people with drug trafficking convictions instead of a policy allowing them to make a case that, as individuals, they are not exclusively defined by the fact of those convictions. The commission went to the trouble of setting out a number of factors that candidates with troubled histories might use to demonstrate their rehabilitation, but then (gratuitously, in my view) chose to deny that opportunity to people with trafficking convictions.
Thanks, Hester. All fair points, especially if we are talking about disadvantaged people who trafficked in marijuana. I just am not sure the reasoning works if we are talking about disadvantaged people who trafficked in heroin or whatever.
Let’s get real here, please.
The drug that most minority offenders are jailed for is crack. Another fact is that white suburbanites use cocaine, which the drug laws treat far more leniently.
All of these obscure the giant stinking carcass in the room — prescription drug abuse, aided and abetted by doctors and insurance companies.
The racism in all this is palpable.
We are seeing yet another example of arrogant (and racist) legislators offering weak rationalizations for their refusal to accept the clearly expressed will of an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters.
I recall being told during the campaign that marijuana was a safe, even beneficent drug, certainly safer than alcohol. That may or may not be so, but surely you wouldn’t say the same thing about crack or powdered cocaine, heroin, etc., right? I don’t think there was a mandate from the public that traffickers in the “bad” drugs should be licensed to sell marijuana. That’s not what I heard during the campaign, anyway. None of this is to deny unjust sentencing disparities between crack and powdered cocaine.
Of course that wasn’t the mandate.
The mandate was to make recreational marijuana available in Massachusetts.
While there is precious little data about marijuana at all — because it has been illegal to even study it for decades — the dangers of alcohol and tobacco are well-known. The mandate is to make recreational marijuana available.
The point is that these regulators are jumping at an irrelevant excuse in order to thwart that mandate.
Okay. I was just responding to what I thought was your claim that barring traffickers in drugs other than marijuana was a “refusal to accept the clearly expressed will of an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters.” But it’s possible I misunderstood what you were saying. In any case, I don’t see that barring traffickers in other drugs from selling marijuana will do anything to make recreational marijuana less available.
Please re-read the thread-starter.
The effect of this vote is to expand the racial disparities of our drug sentencing laws into the recreational marijuana program.
Our existing drug laws amount to outlawing “breathing while black” for urban residents. The effect of this action is to prevent urban minority communities from participating in the market for recreational marijuana.
The mandate of the voters is to make recreational marijuana available. That mandate does not encompass the further expansion of our Jim Crow drug laws.
Again the choice is not between selling marijuana and not selling marijuana. Massachusetts voted overwhelmingly to get into the marijuana business. Who do we let in? The law, as written, envisions a pathway back for individuals who sold the product when it was legal to transfer those skills to a private enterprise in their communities. I would much rather we focus on that solution rather than turn back to a War on Pot mentality while awarding licenses to the wealthy and connected. The Steve Wynn casino will harm far more of our residents than any dispensary.
Well, as someone who never wanted it in the first place I’m not going to complain to loudly about how restrictive we are.
Even though the evidence is clear that this hits minority communities the hardest?
Is this another example of your desire for color blindness? It seems that so long as the law doesn’t explicitly cite race, you’re fine with it.
Some of us complain very loudly about knowingly expanding demonstrably racist government policies. I get that you perhaps don’t join those complaints.
I hope you get that the effect of your reluctance is to strengthen the perception that you care much more about our white residents than about our minorities.
I basically associate myself with tedf’s comments on this thread. It would certainly make sense now that the product is legal to forgive legal difficulties stemming from THAT product. Otherwise, it just seems that licensure should be similar to alcohol, which I don’t believe comes with racial quotas or targets either.
Racism and Puritanism live and thrive in Massachusetts. If all court proceedings in local district courts were televised on local cable, people would see a decision like this as the racism it is.
I’m confused about your example about 18 grams being the threshold for trafficking. That certainly can’t be for pot…as 28 grams makes up an ounce of pot, which is clearly not trafficking weight. I’m not sure I found the right statue, but the one I found indicates 50 pounds of pot meets the threshold of trafficking. The 18 grams appears to be for crack, cocaine and heroin. Maybe I’m being picky, but I first had the impression your comment covered pot in the 18 gram threshold. Given that we are talking pot and the threshold is 50 pounds, that doesn’t seem like an onerous threshold.
Perhaps you could answer an question I have based on reading the news coverage. It appears that ONLY people with a drug offense would be eligible for these “micro business” licensing to deliver or have small cultivation sites. If that is the case (or even if it is only available for people living in certain areas), that would be disappointing. Sure people disportionately affected by the “war on Drugs” should get preference, just like a military vet getting on the Fire Dept. But excluding all others from the chance to get involved in a small scale pot business is very, very unfair.
You’re right that the threshold weight for marijuana trafficking is 50 pounds. I used the weight for trafficking in cocaine and heroin because a conviction for trafficking in marijuana doesn’t trigger the ban (second paragraph of post), Incidentally, in the most recent year for which data is available there was 1 marijuana trafficking conviction in the state and 173 convictions for trafficking in cocaine or heroin.
My understanding about the micro business issue is that people living “in an area of disproportionate impact” might qualify for extra state assistance (in the form of grants or loans or expertise) but would not have exclusive rights to establish those businesses. Agree with you that that would seem unfair and pretty sure that this assistance program hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
It seems reasonable to want to exclude actual dealers in drugs other than marijuana, so I presume the objection is that the criterion for this is too lax?