Hacker News Reader

Comment by currymj | Hacker News Reader

Massachusetts will give priority in getting licenses to marijuana retailers that employ people with prior drug convictions. additionally, if the owners (or immediate family members) themselves have drug convictions there is assistance with taxes, accounting, and so on along with help soliciting investment.

a lot of this also applies, with slight differences, to people regardless of conviction history who have lived for a long time in "areas of disproportionate impact".

i hope these provisions succeed in their goals and become the norm for other states that want to legalize cannabis.

see here: https://www.mass.gov/news/press-release-12122017-cannabis-co...

View on HN

I'd argue the correct thing to do is wipe all criminal records clean of drug related convictions, and do all the good things in your comment.

I would too but does this happen with other crimes when the law changes? I would hope it's automatically applied for everything that becomes legal. Being convicted of a drug crime isn't more unjust than for having gay sex or drinking alcohol.

Here’s at least one example where a progressive modern democracy agrees with your point:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/criminal-conviction...

They did break the law though, the entrepreneurs jumped the wagon when it was legal.

There is another big difference and it's taxes.

But the reason we have laws isn't to stop people from breaking them, it's to stop people from doing $BadThing.

Breaking the law isn't itself immoral, it's just one person breaking someone elses rule. Who is to say the law itself wasn't immoral? Certainly the application of the law in this case has been wildly immoral.

There is a data point in "Person X broke a law Y times" but I don't think it's an important one. We all break laws, probably unknowingly.

Drug related convictions are really mostly drug-related plea deals.

We know for sure that the convicts thought it safer to go to prison on drug charges than to go to court. We don't actually know whether they broke some other laws, and the DA simplified the paperwork. Seems to me that we ought to know this, before deciding what to do.

Well if the DA believes they can be tried for other offences the DA should argue that.

I like the idea of a justice system where all trials are public and you're tried for the crime you actually committed. But that ship sailed a long time ago, in the US -- it's something like 95% plea deals now. Only we pay lip service to old ideas.

Under the current system, it seems to me that plea bargains act as contracts "I agree to serve X years & not go to court", despite being phrased as "I admit guilt for Y crime" on paper.

Of course people actually convicted of crime Y also exist. I'm just surprised that this whole thread assumes that only they exist.

There may even have been incentives to turn other crimes into drug charges. DEA grants to local law enforcement tied drug convictions.

Some police officers will even plant drugs at the scene of a crime.[1]

It would be trivial for a police officer to carry a bag of marijuana/ cocaine / amphetamine and arrest anyone they like for possession.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/baltimore-officer-vide...

Prior drug conviction is one thing, but Oakland has a pretty unbalanced system where you get an advantage by living in a high-drug-arrest area. That means the smartest people from the high-arrest area who are already advantaged by doing whatever they were doing to not get arrested are given a double advantage of priority access to a cannabis license. The real intention is racial discrimination but they probably can't do that so they found other ways to judge someone's race - income and neighborhood. It should be strictly limited to drug convicts/arrestees of all races, incomes, and suburbs, not just people who fit the same group as them.

https://melmagazine.com/the-state-of-drugs-bb51d1b675e0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com