SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports
This week it was announced that Oregon will be expunging the old records of marijuana offenders, along with their new legalization plan. This measure is the farthest that a state has gone to date in regards to applying the new laws to old cases. However, for people who remain in jail for having a plant, the legalization plan does not go far enough.
According to the New York Times (paywall), people who have low-level felony or misdemeanor marijuana charges on their record that are at least ten years old will be eligible for expungement.
While the transition in Oregon is nowhere near what is needed for the hundreds of thousands who are still incarcerated, the aspect that allows for old cases to be expunged is at least a step in the right direction, and is helping people clear their records so they can avoid discrimination.
"Oregon is one of the first states to really grapple with the issue of what do you do with a record of something that used to be a crime and no longer is", law professor Jenny M. Roberts told the New York Times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:16AM
Even if Ca legalized it, you still have the feds to deal with. Then there's the drug testing from employers and doctors. Are they going to let it slide if you test positive for weed? I get what you're saying though, I've been wanting to light up a doobie for years.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:26AM
The feds don't seem to be a problem in Washington or Colorado. They've taken a hands off approach under Obama's orders, because if they realize this is a states rights situation, and if they lose even ONE such suit they lose authority to regulate marijuana everywhere.
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:30AM
The US constitution doesn't actually give the federal government the power to regulate drugs in the first place. Drugs aren't always commerce and interstate, so the commerce clause is irrelevant, despite what the courts have ruled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:43AM
The feds raided a legal weed store in San Diego a couple years ago, they had all legal paperwork to operate in the city and state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @01:45AM
But California didn't legalize recreational use. The "legal" weed store was skating by on flimsy state medical marijuana regulation that the feds have never recognized.
Colorado and Washington got around that medical use (since pot isn't officially approved for any medical use) and just legalized recreational use. Argument over.
The sooner California ex-digitates and approves recreational use the better for every one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @05:05AM
But California didn't legalize recreational use. The "legal" weed store was skating by on flimsy state medical marijuana regulation that the feds have never recognized.
Maybe. But it was worse than that. The prosecutor managed to disbar any testimony as to the legality of the store under California law, and after the fact the jurors admitted that if they had know that it was a legal medical marijuana operation under California law, they would not have convicted under Federal law. So this is just how thin the ice is that the DEA is skating on. A single case that denies federal jurisdiction over drugs, and the entire "industry" of the drug wars goes down the tubes.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 05 2015, @01:39AM
If Chris Christie or some such asswipe gets elected, the cannabis detente is over.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday October 05 2015, @01:49AM
Doubt it.
Its the same voters. And the numbers are growing, and the number of states are growing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @01:58AM
He'd just close all the roads and bridges if he doesn't get his way.
(Score: 1) by ghost on Monday October 05 2015, @01:59PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:29AM
I didn't give credence that employers on the west coast cared about weed any more. Amazing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2015, @12:41AM
Some might, and the doctors that do drug testing will drop you if there's anything in your system that isn't prescribed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Monday October 05 2015, @03:11AM
There's plenty of employers that care about that as well as tobacco use. Not to mention anybody requires a clean drug test for licensing reasons. Even legal medications can land you in hot water at times.
When I was younger, I objected to the drug testing, but as I've grown older, I've gotten tired of picking up the slack for people that choose to use drugs. I'd much prefer to work in a drug-free workplace than to put up with the consequences of other people disrespecting their bodies like that.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Monday October 05 2015, @05:29AM
When I was younger, I objected to the drug testing, but as I've grown older, I've gotten -tired of picking up the slack for people that choose to use drugs- prescriptions for more of the drugs I use.
Dude, FTFY! Toke on, Dude!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 05 2015, @01:02PM
Personally, I still object to drug testing. I don't care what people do in their off hours. I *DO* object to people being high on the job.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 05 2015, @06:12PM
...put up with the consequences of other people disrespecting their bodies like that.
Yeah, that weed hangover will really screw up your work day.