OPINIONS Marijuana Legislation Must Account for Racial Injustice

Julian Ring Madeline Stocker Vida Weisblum Kiley Peterson

Editorial Board

November 6, 2015

Editors’ Note: While medical marijuana was legalized in Ohio in 2016, people of color are still disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of marijuana and racialized rhetoric surrounding its use. Given current discussions around legislation, the Editorial Board has decided to reprint this editorial.

With an almost two-to-one ratio vote on Issue 3, Ohio did not legalize recreational marijuana Tuesday. By a much smaller margin, Issue 2 passed. The state-sponsored Issue 2 was a direct response to ResponsibleOhio’s marijuana legalization proposal, which would have created an oligopoly of 25 total investors in 10 proposed growing plots, concentrating the revenue from legalization in their already-wealthy hands.

A recent poll from Quinnipiac University showed that Connecticut had a 53 percent approval rate for recreational marijuana and a 90 percent approval rate for medicinal marijuana. Yet Issue 3 may not have passed because many voters were concerned that Black and other minority communities affected most by the drug war and criminalization of marijuana wouldn’t see their share of the profits from legalization.

In Ohio, there’s no doubt that Issue 3 going up in smoke will disproportionately affect Black people and other people of color, who are being arrested for possession at a much higher rate than their white counterparts. An exhaustive report by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that, as of 2010, Black Ohioans were four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as whites and made up 38.1 percent of possession-related arrests despite making up only 12.6 percent of the state’s population. Less evidence has been collected on the arrest rates of other communities of color, but history shows that the majority of non-white communities have been dispropor- tionately punished for drug-related crimes.

Had Issue 3 passed, all penalties on possession of one ounce of marijuana would have been eliminated, and 12,000 arrests per year would have been prevented, saving the state over $100 million annually. Legalization also would have paved the way for the proposed Fresh Start Program, an initiative designed to expunge the records of those convicted of marijuana-related crimes and allow those convicted to petition the court to reverse or modify any currently imposed sanctions.

Legalization would have, if nothing else, helped ease the burden of Black and low-income Ohioans whose fight against the criminalization of drugs, police brutality, and systemic incarceration is a daily reality.

But for many, all the “would haves” and “could haves” didn’t add up to a “should have.” The main argument among those otherwise pro-legalization was that it would have created an oligopoly, limiting the profits to former reality star Nick Lachey, fashion designer Nanette Lepore, and sports stars like retired NBA player Oscar Robertson and the Arizona Cardinals’ Frostee Rucker, among 22 other well-off investors. In the words of The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander, “Granting an oligopoly to 10 wealthy investors who hope to get rich quick by exploiting an opportunity created by a movement that aimed to remedy decades of relentless punishment of the poorest and most vulnerable is not justice.”

At the polls, voters decided the reality of the state’s political situation: Those disproportionately affected will continue to suffer until a more equitable legalization policy is proposed. The rejection of Issue 3 may disregard communities who would have benefited from legalization, but we’ve made our decision. The next step is to capitalize on the time gained from tabling the legislation and advocate for a policy that will prioritize racial justice over capitalist greed.

Inevitably, developing just legalization policy would involve a multitude of strategies: increased

See Equity, page 7

Submissions Policy

The Editorial Board encourgages anyone interested in submitting an Opinions piece to email the Opinions Editors at opinions@oberlinreview.org to request a copy of the Opinions primer. Opinions expressed in editorials, letters, op-eds, columns, cartoons, and other Opinions pieces do not necessarily reflect those of The Oberlin Review staff. Submission of content to the Review constitutes an understanding of this publication policy. Any content published by The Oberlin Review forever becomes the property of The Oberlin Review and its administrators. Content creators retain rights to their content upon publication, but the Review reserves the right to republish and/or refuse to alter or remove any content published by the Review. It is up to the Editors-in-Chief whether to alter content that has already been published. The Oberlin Review appreciates and welcomes letters to the editors and op-ed submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Opinions email for inclusion in that week’s issue. Full-length pieces should be between 800 and 900 words; letters to the editor should be less than 600 words. All submissions must include contact information, with full names and any relevant titles, for all signatories; we do not publish pieces anonymously. All letters from multiple writers should be carbon-copied to all signatories to confirm authorship. The Review reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity, length, grammar, accuracy, and strength of argument, and in consultation with Review style. Editors work to preserve the voice of the writers and will clear any major edits with authors prior to publication. Headlines are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. The Review will not print advertisements on its Opinions pages. The Review defines an advertisement as any submission that has the main intent of bringing direct monetary gain to a contributor or otherwise promoting an event, organization, or other entity to which the author has direct ties.