Murphy's Law
Within the very fabric of America’s Representative Democratic system…
…our Constitution was encoded with proactive measures to avoid instances of “mob rule” or impulsive reactions to temporary trends which might compromise the foundation of an orderly society. With that being the case, necessary changes to our Constitution and justice system don’t always come as speedily as we’d like, and many Americans often struggle to understand why. Over the past several years, marijuana legalization and decriminalization has been one of the topics at the fore of discussions about justice, racial equality, and citizens’ rights. Statistics show that at least two thirds of Americans believe that marijuana should be descheduled as a legal substance, but it’s evident that this topic goes beyond just getting high either as a prescription or for pleasure, and has more to do with discrimination on the grounds of race and class. Though change can be slow, it’s no less a welcome sight for those concerned about partial, unjust enforcement of outdated legislature.
For New Jersey, a state appearing to be in lock-step with progressive criminal reform measures that have steadily swept across the nation, 2021 has realized a welcomed end to a lengthy and devastating prohibition on marijuana.
This controversial move was championed by Governor Phil Murphy, who signed a legalization act in February through 3 separate bills, and is touted to have been fueled by the motive of advancing racial equality within the criminal justice system.
Without a doubt, legalization and decriminalization wording contained within the bills certainly lend towards amendments that could have a profound impact on communities ravaged by past policies and stances, though not all are quite sold on the virtuous agenda offered by Governor Murphy. Much of the skepticism surrounding New Jersey’s legalization efforts is directed at a particular agency, the Cannabis Regulation Committee (CRC), including its formation, appointed members, and responsibilities bestowed upon it to govern parameters for both medical and recreational use of cannabis.
Even staunch critics of Governor Phil Murphy and other elected officials involved with the 4-year fight for legalization in New Jersey might concede that decriminalization language contained in the act appears sound and at least partially indemnifying of communities and persons most adversely affected by prior laws regarding cannabis, namely men of color. Under new guidelines:
Marijuana consumption/possession by individuals under the age of 21 is still not permissible, as is unsanctioned growing of the plant
Underage persons found using or possessing the substance will face written warning with their first offense, escalating to parental notice and counseling for subsequent offenses
Use in certain places (not while driving) and possession of up to 6-ounces is considered legal for New Jersians 21 and over, though sale by the general public has not been granted
Medical dispensaries are expected the opportunity to apply for license to sell marijuana within the next year
Police officers are now disallowed to utilize the claim of smelling marijuana, a pretense commonly used in entanglement, to justify stops and searches
To further combat the drastic ramifications which prohibition and flaws in the criminal justice system have wreaked upon black and brown communities, the new bills seek to apportion a percentage of revenue from cannabis sales towards education, economic development, and legal assistance for citizens from what are classified as Impact Zones.
These are areas where past enforcement has been deemed especially harmful due to targeting trends and methods equating in lopsided racial disparities; for instance, though the statistical figures detail that Black citizens are less likely to be in possession of cannabis, they are also 3.5-times as likely to be tried legally for it. A two-fold plan within the bills seeks to not only reverse the toll which the decades long war on marijuana has taken but also promote economic involvement of slighted communities by developing a system to wipe clean prior marijuana convictions from records, and also incentivizing the state of New Jersey to award marijuana retail licenses to individuals who reside within the Impact Zones. This is intended to insure that these communities are not released from the grip of overreaching marijuana regulations, only for more affluent groups and businesses to swoop down and take advantage of a market newly formed by the state’s amendment. Nevertheless, there are those doubting the authenticity of these claims who largely point to the Cannabis Regulatory Committee, which will make key rulings over New Jersey’s future marijuana directive, as the crux of their argument.
A 5-person committee appointed by Governor Murphy along with Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, the CRC will play a most pivotal role in New Jersey’s legalization strategy. The group is tasked with determining who in New Jersey can become licensed to grow and sell marijuana, in addition to the allocation of state funds generated by taxes on sales. Some though are puzzled by the composition of the CRC demographically, as Phil Murphy has been adamant that ceasing prohibition has everything to do with correcting harm done to communities of color, yet we find that the commissions only appointed Black man came after NAACP attorneys challenged the legality and compliance of its former make-up——”one Black woman, one white man, one white woman, one Latino man and one Latino woman”. Though the Cannabis Regulation Committee is headed by a Black woman, Hispanic and White men and women make up the other four members, reasoning serious speculation as to whether the expressed goal of racial equality is truly the priority. The aforementioned appointees of the CRC have remained relatively mum on questions about their selections, though they seem to impress a sense that the committee and its staff represent a diverse enough background to adhere to the state’s overall mission.
Critics suggest that bills that Governor Murphy signed allude to highly progressive facilitations, but that verbiage is neither clear nor specific enough to satisfy their approval.
It remains to be seen whether cannabis revenue and licensure will be adequately spread to deserving communities as has been outlined and stressed.
Intricacies of the procedures and funds required for widespread expungement have not been clearly laid out either. Moreover, the CRC will pass down its rulings on approved marijuana growers and sellers within the confines of a cap of only 37-licenses dolled out within the next 2 years. Such a low number of licenses does raise further concern for how legalization will effectively serve Blacks and other minorities, since limited business opportunity combined with higher prices for legal weed may stoke the flames of the street market even further. As opposed to some other states which have achieved legalization, New Jersey’s continued ban on growing marijuana and selling by the general public stands in the way of genuine retribution. There is evidently little guarantee that arrests by the thousands will not endure in the same communities upon the common people who are only trying to earn a better living by feeding a market of buyers turned off by highly taxed, legal marijuana in New Jersey. In fact, ever since the entire state voted on and approved legalization in November 2020 and amendments became active on January 1 of this year, thousands of citizens have nonetheless been arrested for possession.
The new legislation backed by Phil Murphy will purportedly wave all charges incurred from arrests made in the interim period after legalization laws were altered; however, restricted public access to the booming legal marijuana market is a severe issue thus far unaccounted for, and threatens to compromise the integrity of social justice claims attached to Governor Murphy’s prohibition campaign.
What can we do then to take action into our own hands as private citizens? One viable solution may be to collectively form and invest into community venture capitalist foundations as an option to skirt the problem of limited legal marijuana enterprise opportunities until a slice of the proverbial pie becomes accessible to more and more business-minded citizens.
No matter what your opinion may be on medical or recreational cannabis use, the people have made a statement in the voting booths and our elected officials have responded with their pens; yet and still a chasmic divide exists, separated by effective criminal justice reform in contrast to half-baked policies set to superficially appease New Jersey’s highly liberal and progressive base. Besides placing pressure on our leaders with our voice and our vote, we must explore the community venture capitalist route and other alternatives to discover just how disparaged communities can profit from a growing industry while also avoiding the pitfalls that have repeatedly placed us and our families at a further disadvantage. History shows that we should not always expect swift change, and perhaps it is actually best that some changes be slow and safe. When change is decided on for the betterment of groups oppressed by prior policies, then it should be encompassing, compensatory, and definite.