Incorporating Social Justice Reform Into Legalization Laws
In the area of social justice reform, legislators attempted to take steps to address the significant impacts for thousands of New Jerseyans who have been arrested and convicted of minor cannabis-related offenses.
June 20, 2019 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
One of the more complex issues confronting the latest wave of states looking to legalize cannabis, including New Jersey, is how to incorporate social justice efforts into legalization legislation. To date, 33 states have implemented medical cannabis programs and 10 states have legalized cannabis for recreational use. That number will soon rise to 11, as Illinois just became the first state where the legislature passed a bill legalizing both the possession and sale of cannabis, a designation most believed would go to New Jersey or New York.
According to some analysts, the total U.S. cannabis market would be valued at about $28 billion (or more) if it were legalized today. For some, maybe most, this market potential alone is enough to justify legalizing cannabis, not just in New Jersey but throughout the country. For others, however, the undeniable financial benefits of legalizing cannabis, including the business opportunities and potential tax revenues, are not enough to convince them legalization is in the public interest, particularly in the current climate where social justice reform is claiming a lot of attention in the public discourse.
Social justice reforms aimed at redress for the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been negatively impacted by cannabis prohibition have become intricately intertwined with the cannabis legalization movement. While legalizing cannabis, by itself, will not ameliorate the social and economic fallout resulting from the number of arrests related to cannabis in recent years (approximately 24,000 New Jersey residents are arrested each year for possession of cannabis), correctly addressing the social justice component of cannabis legalization is an important focus of any proposed legalization initiative.
Many of the states that legalized cannabis without considering past convictions are now scrambling to pass legislation dealing with expungements and facing backlash for how the resources and financial benefits of the cannabis industry have excluded the communities most affected by the war on drugs.
For more than a year, New Jersey legislators wrestled with a cannabis reform measure that would fully legalize cannabis in the state, but they came up short—in part because they could not reach consensus on the social justice reforms needed to persuade some lawmakers that legalization is the way to go. The much-publicized New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory and Expungement Aid Modernization Act, upon which a vote was postponed in March 2019, would legalize cannabis for adult-use, expand the medical cannabis program, and streamline expungements for minor possession and distribution offenses.
While the New Jersey State Senate decided to postpone a vote on this bill, it still set the framework for what appears to be the underlying structure of future legalization bills across the country. In fact, Illinois' cannabis legalization bill contains many of the same features, including significant criminal justice reforms.
In the area of social justice reform, New Jersey's legislators attempted to take steps to address the significant impacts for thousands of New Jerseyans who have been arrested and convicted of minor cannabis-related offenses. The bill includes an allocation of business licenses for minorities, veterans and those previously convicted of a cannabis-related offense. The bill also contains a provision that would revamp the expungement process in New Jersey and streamline expungements of cannabis-related convictions.
These sweeteners and others were added with the hope of getting the bill across the finish line, but some critics of the measure assert the bill is inadequate because it does not, or indeed cannot, go far enough to assist the individuals and communities affected the most by decades of policies enforcing cannabis prohibition (a disproportionate number of them being African-American and Latino), while others argued it went too far.
Some legislators disfavor outright legalization of cannabis, but favor decriminalization of cannabis (meaning treating possession of cannabis as a minor offense and imposing fines) in order to halt the large number of arrests and convictions related to cannabis each year. While this appears discordant, there is an unease among legislators who favor the decriminalization-only approach with launching a new business industry centered around cannabis after so many years of penalizing people, particularly people of color, for buying and/or selling cannabis.
The legislators in this camp regard the efforts around social justice reform in New Jersey's cannabis legalization bill as a lark—a ploy designed by those who would benefit the most from the legalization of cannabis to get a major concession while providing very little in return to those who bore the brunt of prohibition. They point to some local efforts to keep cannabis dispensaries and retail establishments out of certain affluent communities and the inadequate development of policies aimed at keeping drivers impaired by cannabis off the roadways.
These legislators simply do not believe that the benefits of fully legalizing cannabis, even with strong social justice policy components, can undo the cumulative harms to the communities affected most profoundly by the criminalization of cannabis and who will most likely be on the frontlines of the growing pains associated with the development of the legal cannabis industry.
On the other side are the legislative and business leaders and advocates who see the continued prohibition against cannabis as a losing proposition for all. They are prepared to enact legislation that disrupts the illegal market for cannabis, bringing much needed tax revenue into the state, revenue that can be deployed to address some of the social ills that are perpetuated by current cannabis prohibition policies. The measure is not viewed as a panacea, but as a step in the right direction.
In essence, they recognize that the bill is not perfect, but they continue to adhere to the theory that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There is much that will need to be considered, and then reconsidered, as the flesh is put on the bone of cannabis legalization in New Jersey. They argue those inevitable pitfalls and restarts should not, however, derail otherwise positive legislation when the alternative is the continuation of 24,000 arrests a year.
Recently, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced plans to vastly expand the medical cannabis program and the Legislature just passed a new expungement bill that revises procedures and expands eligibility for expungement of criminal records, with a new expedited process for expunging certain low-level cannabis or hashish-related offenses. The legislature is also considering a bill that expands medical cannabis.
Those in favor of expanding the state's medical cannabis program acknowledge the treatment benefits associated with cannabis, even if they are skeptical of wide-based, adult-use of cannabis. Supporters of the measures assert that the status quo in the medical cannabis program is unsustainable, with an ever-expanding patient population lacking access to treatment because of New Jersey's very limited market of growers, manufacturers and distributors.
Most view the recent push to expand medical cannabis and revise the expungement policies as positive developments, but the social inequities within New Jersey will likely continue without legalization of cannabis. Expungement without legalization creates a paradox where individuals will continue to be arrested for offenses that are being expunged on an expedited basis. Notwithstanding this conundrum, it appears the legislature is resigned for now to leave the question of legalization to a referendum vote in November 2020.
It seems like everyone agrees that the status quo is not working and that changes to the system must be made. The question is whether the changes under consideration now, which do not include fully legalizing cannabis, will incorporate enough reform to the system, and whether the legislature will continue to kick the can down the road.
Nikolas S. Komyati is chair of the Cannabis Law Practice Group at Bressler, Amery & Ross in Florham Park. Risa D. Rich is a senior associate in the practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLargest Law Firms: New Jersey and Firmwide Attorney Count
'I've Worked Until 2 in the Morning': Lawyers Brace for Trump Policy
6 minute readGOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Trending Stories
- 1Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
- 2Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 3Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 4When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250