By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Simple marijuana possession is legal in several states and is likely to be in others in the future. Yet, the taint of a marijuana conviction on record can be a limiting factor for the convicted seeking employment and other benefits–Especially for engaging in an act that is essentially legal in green states. While certainly the courts are under no present obligation to expunge these records, morally it can be argued that state legislatures should put this social handicap to a rest.
Simply put the run-of-the-mill stoner is not a menace to society. The drug kingpins are. A case certainly can be made that the latter’s criminal record should remain permanent as could likely be articulated with most felony (trafficking) drug charges that organized crime and associated felonies contribute to disruptions. There is a fundamental difference between these two.
Presently there is a movement in many states to remove the right of employers, in general, to have on job applications a check box for the applicant to use if they have a criminal conviction. Many employers will read this box and simply discard the application from further consideration. There is an articulable need for specific cases such as banks needing information concerning conviction records for theft or embezzlement but it is doubtful that simple marijuana possession records in green states should bar an applicant from further consideration when it is immaterial to the requirements of the position applied for.
But in addition to this for otherwise law-abiding citizens the stigma of having a criminal record tends to have a chilling effect to some degree on self esteem and confidence to move forward. For many it is an unnecessary burden.
It is time to move forward and expunge simple marijuana conviction records.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Song Lyrics:
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Let’s take a stand
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks
Tell the Ayatollah, “Gonna put you in a box!”
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Ol’ Uncle Sam’s gettin’ pretty hot
Time to turn Iran into a parking lot
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Call the volunteers; call the bombadiers;
Call the financiers; better get their *** in gear
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
(Let’s nuke ’em! Whoo!)
Call on our allies to cut off their supplies
Get our hands untied, and bring em’ back alive
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Let’s take a stand
Bomb Iran
Our people you been stealin’
Now it’s time for “keelin”, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (Stavro Arrgolus)
To Wonderer……Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado for legalizing recreational pot. Violation of federal marijuana laws is one of the issues the plaintiffs raise.
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes this case, and how they rule.
I do agree with the concept that if someone breaks a law, it demonstrates their regard for the law and their willingness to break it. I have often used that point to argue why “undocumented immigrants” are really still just “illegal aliens” who should be caught, deported, and have to go to the end of the line to apply for their legal immigration papers, and whether they even should be allowed to apply for entry into the USA at all.
But this question being discussed here today has another side that should be considered: The law itself that prohibits something — why it was created and passed, and who proposed it and voted it into existence. If someone breaks a bad law, a law that was created with political or other biased reasons, or a law that was proposed by crooked politicians and pushed through for their own nefarious reasons beyond “for the public good”, and the law was later recognized as a bad law, or one that did not achieve an intended good result, and it was repealed, should that person, who was convicted when the law was in effect, a) have to continue to stay in prison when his/her sentence has not expired? and b) once free again, have that “crime” be a part of his/her records forever?
I think that marijuana prohibition laws are just such bad laws, and anyone who is in jail or prison when one of those laws that applied to them is repealed, that person should be freed immediately and any record of the conviction should be removed forever. (But if the possession of marijuana was enabled by armed robbery, for example, then release would not apply and the sentence and record of the armed robbery would remain.)
I further think that there should be some penalty, heavy fines, prison time, removal from office, etc. for any politician who causes a bad law to be enacted when it is later repealed. Make it a crime to propose and pass laws which make otherwise innocent people be treated as a criminal. Then there probably would be far fewer laws, particularly bad, oppressive, and predatory laws enacted in the first place. Make the politicians be personally responsible for their actions and maybe the government will be better overall.
Expunging mj convictions in states where it’s since become legal sounds good, but as others have pointed out, there are complexities that need to be considered. First, these people chose to break the law, and it was the law at the time. You could view it as breaking the now-illegal prohibitions against inter-racial marriage if you’re inclined to view it charitably. But the fact is that the law was broken, and it’s still against Federal law.
That brings up the duality of state and federal prohibitions of the same action. If someone were prosecuted by the State and has their conviction expunged, are they just “lucky” because it was a State vs. Federal conviction?
Charges and convictions are also bargained down from more severe possible outcomes, so does a “possession with intent to sell” that was bargained down to mere “possession” now get expunged? Are there also cases where the mj possession was the only charge that was pursued vigorously and others were allowed to languish or drop?
Bottom line, I think expunging these convictions is far too simplistic a remedy – there are many unintended consequences that first need to be sussed out and I don’t see the advocates doing the necessary sussing.
Expat, I’ve said before, I have helped people in your situation and will do whatever I can to help you.
Paul: I would avoid KOA.
I’m a Glaucoma patient. I have already been prescribed pills, eye drops, laser surgery, expert consults, nutritional supplements, and lifestyle changes to control my eye pressure, with little results.
The only treatment I have not tried is marijuana. Why? My ophthalmologist has stated: “We (drs) know that marijuana reduces eye (IOC – intra-occular) pressure. But, I’m not allowed to prescribe it.”
If it gets to the point where my vision is truly threatened, then I WILL try whatever ‘alternative’ medicine I feel will benefit me – laws be damned.
All you anti-marijuana drug-warriors take note: If you start going blind, I guarantee you’ll change your tune, real quick. BTW, I am a non-smoker, and detest smoking anything, in any form.
Paul
Regardless of whether Rosa Parks was ‘ready’ to get arrested, orchestrated it, it came to here in an independent moment, or whatever, she stuck her neck out. She made a statement. She took on a disgusting and inhumane law. She is a heroine. You seem to be one miserable SOB.
issacbasonkavich – I am a very happy camper. 🙂
Good posts, I appreciate the feedback.
The purpose of government and by extension the law is to secure the people’s unalienable right to life, liberty and property. Ignorance of that principle is quite often reflected in the abundance of federal, state and local laws enacted. We have a duty to question and even actively seek to nullify laws that violate that principle but being principally right is no solace when one is convicted for violating an unjust law. Don’t do the crime….
“I believe that there are two sets of laws, 1 For the rich and connected, and 1 the rest of us.”
Wrong! Law, whether it is a just law or not, it is simply law. The law is required to be enforced equally and this is where we find the most injustice. I do agree money and/or connections proves Lady Justice is not blind, she’s greedy.
He got his in Electra Glide in Blue, by a pot smoking, dealing, killer. Now that guy stays in jail.
I observe that meth vs heroin are dissemilar. One is speedy an the other is yawn and high mellow.
Then there is tobacco and pot. Tobacco is like meth. Pot is like heroin.
I observe that the tobacco kills the most on Planet Earth. Meth and heroin much less but significant. Pot– few killings. Many pot smokers smoke tobacco so birds of a feather in the lung respect.
I observe that guns are quicker. Suicide is dangerous.
Paul
Did he get off for killing his girlfriend? I liked him in Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
issacbasonkavich – Robert Blake was found not guilty of the killing.
DBQ:
Maybe a pardon by a governor or president is a good solution. The convicted are still guilty but pardoned due to the current circumstance.
Well, I’m torn on this issue. I’m all over the place. Bear with me.
First. If it is NOW legal to posses for personal use (not for sale as a business) small amounts of pot, it does seem to be unfair to keep punishing someone who in the past did the very same thing. If that minor infraction is the only one on their record, what harm is it to remove it. If the pot infraction is coupled with a lot of other things, perhaps not.
On the other hand: The point that they deliberately broke the law when it WAS illegal, does say something about their character. What other laws and rules are they willing break or ignore? As an employer I might not be inclined to hire someone who will put my business in danger because they won’t adhere to the rules.
On yet another hand: People who have committed crimes in the past CAN change. I have some close personal friends and a relative who committed some rather serious crimes many many years ago in their wastrel youth. Today they are model citizens and I would trust them with my life. To keep a person down because they did something in the past and never allow them to repent and rehabilitate seems cruel. Give them a chance!
Running out of other hands Employers have the right to know who they are hiring and information about them that may be relevant to their character and ability to do the job. To hide this information by either not allowing the employer to ask or erasing the information puts the employer and the clients of the business at risk. It doesn’t allow the employer to make a fully informed decision when hiring. The infraction, in this case minor pot possession, could be overlooked by the employer if they feel that it was long enough ago, that the prospective employee has been rehabilitated.
Hiding from the employer previous arrests and convictions for many things: multiple DUIs, drug use, B&E arrests, forgery, domestic battery and abuse ……can all lead to a disastrous hiring mistake that can harm not only the business, but can cause harm to unsuspecting clients. The example of a Bank hiring a person who has control issue, drug use, forgery charges, can lead to financial losses.
I just don’t know. Should we HIDE these things? Should there be full disclosure? Who is going to take the responsibility if the employee turns out to be an embezzler, robs the place, snaps and harms customers if the information has been hidden? Character counts. And people need to be given the chance as well.
I just don’t know.
Paul
It starts with a small part, then grows. There may be some residue that never changes but evolution is not a complete change, all at once. There were those that still supported slavery but they diminished. There were those that still supported prohibition but they diminished. There will always be a few that missed the bus but eventually, with continuity, society evolves. Today, in states where smoking pot is not illegal, those that were convicted when it was illegal should not be in jail, or have a criminal record when some today are smoking pot, legally, and without it, on the surface, affecting their lifestyle, job, etc. Why continue punishing someone for having done something that is no longer illegal? The law is a servant of the society, not some old hairy dude sitting on a cloud. We made him in our image, not the other way around.
issacbasonkavich – we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Think Barreta said that.
Jeeze and the word idiots is one sentence is a good summary of life.
(music)
Jesus Christ! Superstar! Why we wonder where you are?
On the Cloud.
Outter space.
There to protect the human race.
etc
I believe that there are two sets of laws, 1 For the rich and connected, and 1 the rest of us. If you are not rich or connected then throw the book at you, lock you up, ruin your life. I don’t care, just die. If you are well connected, then do whatever you want. I mean for gods sake, what is the point of being rich and connected if you can’t use it to your advantage. May as well be one of the rest and just die, or at least make stuff I want for minimum wage.
Jeeze, such idiots.
Due Process of Law
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life,liberty, and property. The DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868,declares,”[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government….
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law
Olly, character does matter, Rosy Parks had character, but she chose to disobey the law and sit in the front of the bus. You have character, but please don’t imply you’ve never done anything that society deems illegal – you just didn’t get caught doing it. There’s just too much law out there for you never to have been entangled, and some of that law is crap, like pot-possession laws. Budweiser and Marlboro have done more harm than Rosy Parks ever did or pot ever has.
Off the cuff, I’m on the fence with regard to expunging a conviction for the sale of marijuana in a business venture. Perhaps a reduction to misdemeanor status is appropriate. However, simple possession for personal use of the “devil weed” should never have been a crime.
Best regards.
stevegroen – Rosa Parks was a setup. They had someone ready to arrest her and hustle her off the bus so she would not be harmed. That does not take guts. That takes cunning.
Paul writes, “stevegroen – Rosa Parks was a setup. They had someone ready to arrest her and hustle her off the bus so she would not be harmed. That does not take guts. That takes cunning.”
Paul, yours is a fantastic and outrageous claim.
“She sat near the middle of the bus, just behind the 10 seats reserved for whites. Soon all of the seats in the bus were filled. When a white man entered the bus, the driver (following the standard practice of segregation) insisted that all four blacks sitting just behind the white section give up their seats so that the man could sit there. Mrs. Parks, who was an active member of the local NAACP, quietly refused to give up her seat. . . . Her action was spontaneous and not pre-meditated, although her previous civil rights involvement and strong sense of justice were obvious influences. “When I made that decision,” she said later, ‘I knew that I had the strength of my ancestors with me.'” https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/rosaparks/story.asp
“At the time, Parks was secretary of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP. She had recently attended the Highlander Folk School, a Tennessee center for training activists for workers’ rights and racial equality. She acted as a private citizen “tired of giving in”. Although widely honored in later years, she also suffered for her act; she was fired from her job as a seamstress in a local department store, and received death threats for years afterwards.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
You should be ashamed of yourself for the comment.
stevegroen – “Rosa Parks was not the first woman in Montgomery to refuse to get out of her seat so a white man could be comfortable.
“Rosa was aware…that in the last twelve months alone three African-American females had been arrested for the same offense. One incident made the newspapers in March; it even happened on the same bus line. Of four black passengers asked to surrender their seats in no-man’s land, two refused–an elderly woman and fifteen-year-old Claudette Colvin. ‘I done paid my dime,’ Colvin had said. ‘I ain’t got no reason to move.’ The elderly woman got off the bus before police arrived. Colvin refused to move, so police dragged her, fighting and crying, to the squad car, where she was rudely handcuffed…”
“Colvin was charged with violating the city segregation law, disorderly conduct, and assault. With the NAACP defending her, she was convicted but fined only for assault, the most absurd of the three trumped-up charges. It was a shrewd ruling; it sent a tough message to blacks while avoiding an NAACP appeal of a clearly unconstitutional law. Afterward, E.D. Nixon, former Pullman porter and [now] president of the local NAACP chapter, met with the indignant young Colvin to determine if she might make a strong plaintiff in a test case. But she had recently become pregnant, which spelled trouble; Nixon knew that Montgomery’s church-going blacks would not rally behind an immature, unwed, teenaged mother who was also prone to using profanity.”
–From Black Profiles in Courage by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Alan Steinberg, pp.233-234.
In this more complicated version of the story, Rosa Parks is no mere seamstress tuckered out from pressing pants. She has also been for many years a volunteer for the local chapter of the NAACP. She is, in fact, E.D. Nixon’s secretary. She knows all about Claudette Colvin and the other women who have been arrested for refusing to give up their seats.”
Which myth are we going to tell, Steve?
Paul – so is it just your rendition of history from which you made the following statement: “stevegroen – Rosa Parks was a setup. They had someone ready to arrest her and hustle her off the bus so she would not be harmed. That does not take guts. That takes cunning.”
In other words, where’s your proof that she “was a setup” and that someone was “ready to arrest her” and “hustle her off the bus,” let alone whether it took courage to not give up her seat in the negro section of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955?
Weren’t you one of the folks on this list criticizing Dr. Zinn’s version of history?
stevegroen – this is a longer read, but put several new lights on Rosa Parks and her staged arrest.
http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode68.htm
Paul, I read through the portion regarding the author’s “suspicion” after heir she states it was “premeditated,” apparently for civil rights reform publicity.
What both of you fail to understand is the real danger of harm in doing anything of the sort, whether or not it was planned. Twelve years later, and 13 years after Brown v. Board, even Parks’ mentor, MLK, was murdered. It would have been easy pickings to drown her in the nearest bog. Your clear apathy based on suspicion doesn’t quite go far enough in perceiving the harm she could have caused herself by such an action even were it staged.
Your position, even assuming it were true, is a bit like saying the Allied invasion at Normandy was calculated and therefore banal, lacking in courage, and unworthy of respect because the Allies deceived the Germans into thinking the invasion would occur at Calais.
Rosie Parks’ act was one of selfless devotion to justice.
stevegroen – since no one had been injured prior to her staging her ‘protest,’ there was likely to be little harm in her doing it. And she was gotten out of jail right away so there was no problem there. The mug shot you always see is from being arrested a year later.
And, as you will see, what she did was within the law. She was convicted/charged with disobeying the bus driver. Let’s just say she had a big net when she jumped.
Olly:
There is a great non-partisan book you would absolutely love titled “With Liberty and Justice For Some” that came out about 2011. It gives equal time to both Bush and Obama.
The point is, regardless of party, a “law & order” supporter should not want anyone operating above the law and U.S. Constitution.
Why should Americans that aren’t powerful or wealthy be so severely punished for low level offenses but the aristocracy can commit felonies with impunity? We either have a constitutional “rule of law” or we don’t.