Speaker 1: You're listening to Comedy Central. What Happens Roy Wood Jr. Next,
Speaker 1: you're about to hear a special presentation of the Daily
Speaker 1: Show podcast that I host called Beyond the Scenes. Now.
Speaker 1: All it is, It's very simple. If it's a topic
Speaker 1: that's already been on the Daily Show, we talk about
Speaker 1: it again and we go even deeper on the topic,
Speaker 1: and you know, see where we are now on the issue,
Speaker 1: get deeper into the origins of the problem. When we
Speaker 1: do that with Daily Show producers, writers, correspondents and expert
Speaker 1: guests who know a hell of a lot more about
Speaker 1: it than us to help us break it down. Heaven listen, Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome to Beyond the Scenes, the Daily Show podcast that
Speaker 1: goes a little deeper into the segments and topics that
Speaker 1: originally aired on the show. Like if the Daily Show
Speaker 1: is the car, then this podcast is the extra bills
Speaker 1: and whistles that make it feel fancy, leather interior, that
Speaker 1: screen with the GPS that pops up, heated seats and
Speaker 1: cool seats so your butt can be toasty or cold.
Speaker 1: Today we're discussing the topic that Trevor covered on four
Speaker 1: back in That's right, We're talking about weed that they'll
Speaker 1: call it weed, it's cannabis. The Trump administration had a
Speaker 1: lot of pushback on legalizing cannabis federally, despite the positive
Speaker 1: outcomes of the legalization well, the clip support for legalizing
Speaker 1: part is at record levels, partly because Americans have started
Speaker 1: to realize that unnecessarily incarcerating people from marijuana does more
Speaker 1: harm than good, and also because it's the only way
Speaker 1: to handle all of these hot dog crusted pizzas. But
Speaker 1: even as most people are moving in that direction, unfortunately
Speaker 1: there is one very powerful little man who disagrees. Attorney
Speaker 1: General Jeff Sessions has directed federal prosecutors to re evaluate
Speaker 1: marijuana enforcement. In a departure from the Obama administration, more
Speaker 1: aggressive enforcement may be coming. I reject the idea that
Speaker 1: we're gonna be better place if we have more. I
Speaker 1: wanna and you can just go down to the corner
Speaker 1: dropsy store and get it all right. Calm down, Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: think of the upside, man, More people smoke marijuana, more
Speaker 1: people buy your cookies. Think about it. Think about it,
Speaker 1: and and it's not just your cookies. Legalizing marijuana has
Speaker 1: already created thousands of full time jobs, and it's raised
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue, a lot
Speaker 1: of which has gone towards public schools. So you see, kids,
Speaker 1: drugs are cool. Yeah. Today, I'm joined by former cannabis
Speaker 1: lobbyists and founder of the Better Organizing to Win Legalization
Speaker 1: Political Action Committee better known as Bowl Pack, Justin Strekel. Justin,
Speaker 1: how are you doing. I'm doing great. Victory is on
Speaker 1: the horizon, but we still have a ways to get there.
Speaker 1: I love it. I love it. Let's keep fighting, Justin,
Speaker 1: one edible at a time. Do you have any edible
Speaker 1: that we can talk about that later. I've also joined
Speaker 1: by the author of Bending the Ark, My journey from
Speaker 1: prison to politics, Keita Jay haynes Keyta. How are you
Speaker 1: feeling today? I'm doing well. Thank you. I'm excited to
Speaker 1: be here to discuss this important topic. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: all so so much for being here. Let's dive right
Speaker 1: into it. You know, Justin as a former cannabis lobbyist,
Speaker 1: just just for the layman break down for me and
Speaker 1: the listeners real quick. You know what's going on. You know,
Speaker 1: cannabis is legal and more states than ever, but still
Speaker 1: not on a federal left like you know what I
Speaker 1: feel like if you're like when your mama say you
Speaker 1: can do something, but your dad will be like, well
Speaker 1: you do that, but not seeing when I'm doing it,
Speaker 1: and you ain't sure if you're still gonna get in trouble.
Speaker 1: And that so explain to us the state legality versus
Speaker 1: the federal criminality aspect of cannabis. Well this, that's a
Speaker 1: great question, and unfortunately a lot of people, even who
Speaker 1: work in Congress, do not understand the answer to that question. Basically,
Speaker 1: let's start the showing a happy note justin how about that?
Speaker 1: Thank you? Congress is absurd and they don't know what
Speaker 1: they're doing here. Um, you know this, this is one
Speaker 1: of those things where America, you know, the things we
Speaker 1: choose to care about and how we enforce it. Marijuana
Speaker 1: is criminalized at the federal level for all fifty states
Speaker 1: and territories for all citizens under federal law, but nineteen states,
Speaker 1: which include forty percent of Americans, have chosen to legalize it,
Speaker 1: and for all intents and purposes, the federal government isn't
Speaker 1: taking action against them. But for the cannabis businesses that
Speaker 1: are around the country, they're not allowed to take basic
Speaker 1: federal tax deductions. Uh, for the for the banking system.
Speaker 1: These these cannabis businesses are in mostly not getting banked
Speaker 1: because banks are afraid of the sec um and the laundry.
Speaker 1: List of other states, particularly in the South UH, that
Speaker 1: are using the ongoing federal prohibition to justify continue arresting
Speaker 1: people with state and local police. Is that why you
Speaker 1: think some states are against the legalization of cannabis Because
Speaker 1: there is a degree of profitability within the prison system.
Speaker 1: That is one of the common drivers. I think that, sadly,
Speaker 1: apathy is the easiest out for politicians right now. If
Speaker 1: the status quos continuation doesn't threaten their continued election, then
Speaker 1: they're just gonna stick with the status quo. And in UH,
Speaker 1: in all these states, not a single state arrests Americans
Speaker 1: in a in a racially even way. Thank the a c. L.
Speaker 1: You put out a really terrifying but not surprising report
Speaker 1: that showed Black Americans are nearly four times as likely
Speaker 1: to get arrested and white Americans despite similar consumption rights. Now,
Speaker 1: with your lobbying work, you know, has it always been
Speaker 1: about your relationship with bowl or does your advocacy did
Speaker 1: it start even before that time? Oh? Yeah, this this
Speaker 1: started in I was a legislative aid in the Virginia
Speaker 1: State Senate and I helped write the first decriminalization bill
Speaker 1: for my boss, along with the nub A CP, the
Speaker 1: A c l U, and Normal. And then a year later,
Speaker 1: Normal recruited me to be their federal lobbyist and I
Speaker 1: joined the organization in October when I thought my job
Speaker 1: was gonna be very different than than what was unveiled
Speaker 1: to me. The second week of November, I thought my
Speaker 1: job at the Daily Show was going to be very
Speaker 1: different than what was unveiled to me. Yeah. Now, Normal,
Speaker 1: that's the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Form
Speaker 1: of Marijuana Laws, and they've been around for fifty years. Keita,
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about your book a little bit, but
Speaker 1: I first want to get your opinion, you know, before
Speaker 1: we even talk about the criminalization of cannabis. And while
Speaker 1: I was criminalized in the first place, let's talk about
Speaker 1: the portrayal of smoking. Like even at the top of
Speaker 1: the show, like I've had to be reminded by my
Speaker 1: cannabis smoking friends that even the word weed itself was
Speaker 1: a propaganda ish word. Like, talk to us a little
Speaker 1: bit about just the portrayal of weed heads versus say,
Speaker 1: like a stoner. Yeah, I mean I think it really
Speaker 1: you know, goes along with what Justin said, you know,
Speaker 1: with the report that the a c O. You released,
Speaker 1: you know, just talking about the number of African Americans
Speaker 1: that are arrested for marijuana possession versus the number of
Speaker 1: white people that are arrested for marijuana possessions. So you know,
Speaker 1: as as with anything, you know, we see that you know,
Speaker 1: black people are criminalized, right, and so we're always going
Speaker 1: to find a reason to criminalize black people, and you know,
Speaker 1: not only withoud marijuana, but with all of you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, the drugs that they're out there, and
Speaker 1: you know, I mean we we know, you know, when
Speaker 1: we talk about you know, crack and powder, cocaine, um,
Speaker 1: you know, the difference with that, you know, the way
Speaker 1: that black people are treated in the way that white
Speaker 1: people are treated. But again it is white people that
Speaker 1: is using it at a rate that higher than black people.
Speaker 1: And so that's the thing said, you know, and we
Speaker 1: talk about it because you know, we hear all of
Speaker 1: this stuff. You know, it's cannabis, you know, and everybody
Speaker 1: is you know, into the cannabis business and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: But when we were prosecuting black people for it, it it
Speaker 1: was exactly what you said, it was weed, right, um,
Speaker 1: you know, because that was right exactly, you know, and
Speaker 1: it was the gateway drug and it led to you
Speaker 1: know more, you know, people using different drugs and being
Speaker 1: involved in violent crimes and all of those types of things. Now,
Speaker 1: but now that we see that white people are involved
Speaker 1: in this and it is cannabis, and white people are
Speaker 1: profiting off of this as well, um, whereas the black
Speaker 1: people cannot profit off of it, right, And so you know,
Speaker 1: so there are so many different racial components when it comes,
Speaker 1: you know, to the criminalization of marijuana and and and
Speaker 1: again the legalization of marijuana because even in the states
Speaker 1: where it is legal, like I said, black people are
Speaker 1: not really the ones that are able to benefit from
Speaker 1: it because when you look at this state of you know,
Speaker 1: I'm saying, when you look at Chicago, right, recreational uses there,
Speaker 1: but you can still be prosecuted for if or in
Speaker 1: public housing. Well we know who lives in public housing
Speaker 1: in Chicago, right, you know. So it's all of those
Speaker 1: little different nuances. And then I think that you know,
Speaker 1: there was even some talk about the fact that you
Speaker 1: could not be involved in the cannabis business if you had,
Speaker 1: you know, felonies on your record. Well, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: we we all knew who have felonies on their records.
Speaker 1: And you know, we can have a whole conversation today
Speaker 1: about why, um, you know, black people have felonies on
Speaker 1: their record. Right. So again, you know, even as we're
Speaker 1: talking about the legalization of marijuana, there's still this whole
Speaker 1: racial inequality there that black people are still experiencing. How then,
Speaker 1: why was it even criminalized in the first place? And
Speaker 1: this is you know for either of you. You know,
Speaker 1: like if weed is this holistic thing that helps and
Speaker 1: year man and everything cool man, why was it criminalized
Speaker 1: to begin with? Different people can have different opinions about it.
Speaker 1: But again, but I think as when we look at anything,
Speaker 1: when we look at anything that is criminalized, I think
Speaker 1: it it all stems back to making sure that black
Speaker 1: people are gonna have convictions on their record. It's all
Speaker 1: about stripping power from black people, from black communities. And again,
Speaker 1: and we can have a whole conversation about this because
Speaker 1: once we have criminalized something, and then we have associated
Speaker 1: with black people, and we have associated with blackness. Then
Speaker 1: there's a whole another issue. We're all coming up on
Speaker 1: mid term elections, right, we know that if you have
Speaker 1: a felony on your record, then you can't vote. And
Speaker 1: right now, you know what I'm saying, Across this country,
Speaker 1: the number of people that you know that that are
Speaker 1: disenfranchised because of a felony conviction on the record is
Speaker 1: is just astounding, right And here in my state, in
Speaker 1: Tennessee alone, we have four hundred and fifty thousand people
Speaker 1: who can't vote because of that. We are number three
Speaker 1: in the country with the black people that were disenfranchising, Right,
Speaker 1: So it's bigger than just oh, well, you know, we're
Speaker 1: gonna criminalize this. It's it's really and truly when you
Speaker 1: start looking at it and looking at the intersectionality of
Speaker 1: all these issues, it is literally about stripping the power
Speaker 1: away from the black community. And if if I can
Speaker 1: add to that, in the early nineteen thirties, Harry Anslinger,
Speaker 1: who was an out of work prohibitionist under alcohol prohibition,
Speaker 1: was trying to find himself a new job, and he
Speaker 1: was running around the country building up support for marijuana prohibition,
Speaker 1: and he would say things like, you know, reform makes
Speaker 1: the Negroes think they're as good as the white man,
Speaker 1: or refirm makes negroes look at a white woman twice.
Speaker 1: And then he became the first director of the Federal
Speaker 1: Beer of Narcotics. That was it, That was on his
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, man, I've done the research, and when
Speaker 1: he smoked his weed, they look at white women and go,
Speaker 1: you're hired. What about even calling it marijuana. I've heard
Speaker 1: that even that that that connotation in and of itself
Speaker 1: had racist roots. Marijuana is simply the Spanish word for
Speaker 1: cannabis um And the when I think about it, you know,
Speaker 1: my my job isn't here to to tell you what
Speaker 1: to call it. My job is to change the law.
Speaker 1: And the Controlled Substances Act says marijuana and it's actually
Speaker 1: spelled with an h uh. You know, it was all
Speaker 1: the inflection that was put on it when during this
Speaker 1: racist campaign to to stir up animosity against Mexican particularly
Speaker 1: Mexicans and Black Americans. UM So, I don't care if
Speaker 1: you call it marijuana, weed, cannabis, pot, whatever, I just
Speaker 1: want to call it legal. Where do you all think
Speaker 1: the role of cannabis in media and entertainment? Uh fits
Speaker 1: in terms of the portrayal of it or fueling the war,
Speaker 1: Like you know, Dr Dre had an album called The
Speaker 1: Chronic and we all know when's Snoop and the whole
Speaker 1: West Coast rap scene against Cypress Hill. If we're even
Speaker 1: gonna go back even further than Death Row Records, where
Speaker 1: it was a lot of we smoke weed. This is
Speaker 1: what we do. It's fun, We're having a good time.
Speaker 1: How much did that play into some of the negative
Speaker 1: stereotypes and even with the films, you know, if we
Speaker 1: talk about say Friday or Pineapple Express or Harold and Kumar, um,
Speaker 1: how much do you feel like those movies and music
Speaker 1: based on weak culture influenced the portrayal of of of cannabis,
Speaker 1: be it positively or negatively. And I think it definitely
Speaker 1: influenced um, you know specifically, like you said, you know,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about you know, like Dr Dre and
Speaker 1: you know, in his album The Chronic and you know,
Speaker 1: and we see you know, Snoop Dogg. When you look
Speaker 1: at the lyrics of what they were singing about, you know,
Speaker 1: it's like, again, this is the criminalization of black people,
Speaker 1: the criminalization of black bodies, right, and so that is
Speaker 1: what it was associated with and so when you associate
Speaker 1: something negative with it, then you can treat it negatively.
Speaker 1: And I mean, and I think you know, we're talking
Speaker 1: about cannabis, but also to like, let's look at, you know,
Speaker 1: the portrayal of crack cocaine with New Jack City, right,
Speaker 1: you know, like what what that did? You know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, Like in the crack epidemic, like it portrayed
Speaker 1: black people they were crack heads, um, you know, and
Speaker 1: all of these things, right, and you know when it
Speaker 1: comes to Marijuanda, they were weed heads and you know,
Speaker 1: and they sat around and they were either involved, you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying in in violent you know, activities
Speaker 1: in their neighborhood and they sat around and they did
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing. And so I mean it's it's just really
Speaker 1: this whole narrative that's associated with this. I mean, you
Speaker 1: can look at just over the history that the narrative
Speaker 1: that has been associated, you know, with with black people,
Speaker 1: whether it's black men or whether it's black women. You know,
Speaker 1: like we can talk about way of fair right, like
Speaker 1: and how that you know, had a negative connotation when
Speaker 1: it was associated with black women. But when we look
Speaker 1: at you know, the history of welfare and where it
Speaker 1: all came. It was white people that were involved in
Speaker 1: this to begin with, and so it's it's all of
Speaker 1: those things, you know. We you know, if we want
Speaker 1: to criminalize something, then we will associate black people with it.
Speaker 1: Building upon Keytas comments, I will say, you know, just culturally,
Speaker 1: the acknowledgement of marijuana used to be it through be
Speaker 1: through rap, hip hop or going back to the Chiech
Speaker 1: and Chong movies, and then later the of just the
Speaker 1: explosion of the Internet and people being able to communicate
Speaker 1: and share memes and little clipped videos really helped give
Speaker 1: the public the opportunity to review this substance through a
Speaker 1: lens that wasn't just the government funded propaganda that was
Speaker 1: you know, like refer Madness, which now we just use
Speaker 1: as a colloquialism about how absurd it was, but that
Speaker 1: was a government, taxpayer funded movie to to scare white
Speaker 1: people to not use marijuana and and to stoke racial division.
Speaker 1: These high school boys and girls are having a hop
Speaker 1: at the local soda fountain. Innocently they danced, innocent of
Speaker 1: a new and deadly mennace lurking behind closed doors. Marijuana,
Speaker 1: the burning weed with its roots in hell. That was
Speaker 1: the only lens that people had largely from you know,
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty, the beginning of criminalization through Ronald Reagan until
Speaker 1: we really started getting to be able to access different
Speaker 1: aspects of the culture. And I think even though some
Speaker 1: of that propaganda has you know, subsided, I still think
Speaker 1: the ideology is still there. You know, to what Keita said,
Speaker 1: you know, if you want to criminalize it attached black
Speaker 1: and brown to it. You know, like the state of
Speaker 1: Texas is a great example where I think the population
Speaker 1: of black people, but we almost like, of all the
Speaker 1: cannabis possession arrests, it's like, oh, you only find you're
Speaker 1: only finding us, We're the only ones you're catching went
Speaker 1: to marijuana officer. Nobody, nobody else as marijuana. And so
Speaker 1: you know, that creates opportunities for people to separate, you know,
Speaker 1: families based on drug charges. And you know, the thing
Speaker 1: that's also very very messy when you talk about drug
Speaker 1: charges is that you know, you start talking about assets
Speaker 1: seizures and forfeitures, and then you're also able to charge
Speaker 1: anybody else. This is you know, what I really love
Speaker 1: about drug laws is that it's group possession. If they
Speaker 1: wanted to be if I'm with you and you got
Speaker 1: the drugs, somehow we got the drugs, and I'm like, no,
Speaker 1: they got the drugs, And I think that's also how
Speaker 1: they're able to catch up you know, family members and
Speaker 1: loved ones, and you know, that's just a whole another
Speaker 1: layer to it, which pet I would love to talk
Speaker 1: to you a little bit more about, you know, after
Speaker 1: the break, about your journey and how women in prison,
Speaker 1: you know, and girlfriends and wives of drug offenders are
Speaker 1: also caught up in this dragnet over a drug that
Speaker 1: should have been legal the whole time in the first place.
Speaker 1: We'll do that after the break. This is beyond the
Speaker 1: scenes now, Kita, I want to dive more into the
Speaker 1: story that inspired your book, because you know, we spoke
Speaker 1: with Justin you know, earlier just about his work on
Speaker 1: the activism and the lobby and side of things to
Speaker 1: get these laws changed, to keep things from happening that
Speaker 1: happened to people like yourself. Now, if you could for
Speaker 1: the people who don't know and what inspired your book?
Speaker 1: How did you end up serving time for a cannabis charge?
Speaker 1: So I end up serving almost four years in federal
Speaker 1: prison um for and the charge was actually aiding and
Speaker 1: abetting a conspiracy to distribute one hundred to four hundred
Speaker 1: kilograms of marijuana. Actually had UM seven charges, and part
Speaker 1: of those charges where the conspiracy charges, which is what
Speaker 1: you allude to earlier, UM, and it basically says that
Speaker 1: if one person or a couple of people had marijuana,
Speaker 1: and if you associated with him, then you can be
Speaker 1: charged with that, and conspiracy can be attached to pretty
Speaker 1: much any of the you know offenses in the federal system.
Speaker 1: So myself, along with twenty eight other people were indicted
Speaker 1: in the Middle District of Tennessee on various different marijuana charges. UM.
Speaker 1: Everyone chose to put guilty except for me. I chose
Speaker 1: to go to trial, chose to hold the government to
Speaker 1: its burden, and was acquitted of those charges and was
Speaker 1: found guilty of aiding and embedding. But what a lot
Speaker 1: of people don't understand is that aiding and embedding still
Speaker 1: ties back to the underlining offense, which was a conspiracy offense.
Speaker 1: And the jury UM was asked to determine the amount
Speaker 1: of marijuana that I was responsible for, and they checked
Speaker 1: the entire amount of the conspiracy. And so in the
Speaker 1: federal system, the amount of time that you get is
Speaker 1: based upon the amount of Mariwanna that you have, and
Speaker 1: so the amount that they checked automatically carried a five
Speaker 1: year mandatory minimum. So regardless, you know, me, being someone
Speaker 1: who had never had any exposure with the criminal legal system,
Speaker 1: I was already looking at five years in federal prison regardless,
Speaker 1: just because of the amount of marijuana that they checked.
Speaker 1: And you never seen saw touch the weed. Ain't never nothing,
Speaker 1: no no. The guy that I was dating, UM, he
Speaker 1: told me that him and his family that they had
Speaker 1: some businesses in Memphis, which is about three hours here
Speaker 1: in Nashville, and UM that they had a Beepers plush
Speaker 1: shop and that UM, no one was going to be
Speaker 1: at the store when UM FedEx was going to be
Speaker 1: delivering UM the Patriots and cell phones. Didn't asked if
Speaker 1: I would sign my name and his cousins would come
Speaker 1: and pick it up. So all I ever did was
Speaker 1: sign my name on packages, never opened up the packages,
Speaker 1: never even saw any marijuana when they brought it into
Speaker 1: court for the jury to see. It was the first
Speaker 1: time that I saw anything that was ever alleged to
Speaker 1: have been in those packages. And that alone is enough
Speaker 1: for a conspiracy charge, and there are people like that
Speaker 1: that's still sit in prison to this day on similar circumstances. Yes,
Speaker 1: that was enough. Um, there was also this this part
Speaker 1: of the whole trial because was convicted on the fact
Speaker 1: that I should have known that there was a marijuana
Speaker 1: in the back in those boxes. Not that I actually knew,
Speaker 1: but that I should have known. How Okay, that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's a that's another part of the whole criminal legal process.
Speaker 1: And I hope that you know, when people read the book,
Speaker 1: that they see that and understand that because you know,
Speaker 1: we we can be convicted on the fact that we
Speaker 1: should have known. And that was one of the Jerry
Speaker 1: instructions is that even though I did not have direct knowledge,
Speaker 1: that there were enough things that happened within this conspiracy
Speaker 1: where I should have known that there was marijuana that
Speaker 1: was in these packages. And and there are people that
Speaker 1: are serving life sentences in prison in federal prison right
Speaker 1: now over marijuana. Yeah, and worse, it could have been cocaine,
Speaker 1: and we wouldn't be talking today if we're really gonna
Speaker 1: be honest about it, right right. You mentioned also in
Speaker 1: the book that you studied criminal justice in college, and
Speaker 1: you know and that you had a heavy interest in law,
Speaker 1: and like you even worked as a correctional officer at
Speaker 1: a point. How did your interest in the legal system
Speaker 1: help and hurt you in your case? Yes, so how
Speaker 1: it hurt was that I remember during the trial, um,
Speaker 1: the government had subpoena like all of my school records
Speaker 1: because I was in school major and in criminal justice
Speaker 1: and psychology at the time, and I was on the
Speaker 1: dean's list, and so I had all A s and
Speaker 1: B s. And so they tried to equate the fact
Speaker 1: that I did so well in school in these criminal
Speaker 1: justice classes again that I should have known as it, Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: and in my particular situation, and it actually was. So
Speaker 1: it was that I think that they tried to use
Speaker 1: that to really hurt me. I think it helped because
Speaker 1: I didn't really walk into it as blind as most
Speaker 1: people are right to the federal system is an animal
Speaker 1: all within itself, and most people don't really know people
Speaker 1: who have had contact with the federal system because it's
Speaker 1: it's not the same misstate system. Like you don't see
Speaker 1: people that's getting probation and coming home and stuff. In
Speaker 1: the federal system, people are going away for for years
Speaker 1: and years and years and years, and so the fact
Speaker 1: that I had was studying criminal justice and particularly had
Speaker 1: really done a lot of research on the disparities between
Speaker 1: the powder cocaine and the crack cocaine at that time. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I kind of had an idea of what
Speaker 1: the federal system was. But even still, even with even
Speaker 1: with having a basic knowledge is still does not prepare
Speaker 1: you for all of the things that happened within within
Speaker 1: the criminal legal system, because on the one hand, you
Speaker 1: want to appear intelligent and competent so that they believe
Speaker 1: even then on the other hand, if you're too smart,
Speaker 1: then old Lord Jesus, that's go ahead. And then also
Speaker 1: probably didn't help that you was a black woman. No,
Speaker 1: it actually, um, it did not help that I was
Speaker 1: a black woman. And it's interesting because my judge was
Speaker 1: a white female who was a Clinton appointee, and she,
Speaker 1: you know, parades herself as being progressive and white women
Speaker 1: and that label progressive. There's another conversation another day as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned. Um, but you know, she told
Speaker 1: me that any person of my intelligence should have known
Speaker 1: that I was dealing with something highly illegal, and that
Speaker 1: I was lucky to have been acquitted of all of
Speaker 1: the other charges. And so you know, she talked to
Speaker 1: me in a manner as if you know, I was
Speaker 1: this black person and I had these advantages that black
Speaker 1: people normally don't have, And how dare I end up
Speaker 1: in front of her courtroom? Because you know, talk about
Speaker 1: this in a book. There was a white female who
Speaker 1: was addicted to drugs. She robbed a bank and she
Speaker 1: got less time than I did. Now, you definitely know
Speaker 1: when you're robbing a bank. Oh absolutely that when you
Speaker 1: were extremely aware of Now justin I know that you
Speaker 1: would also in your past when you were younger, got
Speaker 1: arrested h for smoking cannabis. Walked me through your journey
Speaker 1: through the federal correction system. It wasn't a federal charge,
Speaker 1: it was it was a local charge. Uh, how I
Speaker 1: did not um. I got a rested with my best friend.
Speaker 1: We were out camping and they got us with underage
Speaker 1: alcohol and we watched sitting handcuff for forty five minutes
Speaker 1: as they searched the campsite for cannabis. We saw these
Speaker 1: rangers on their hands and knees with flashlights in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night searching for for pot. And when
Speaker 1: we went to the judge. Uh, same charge. You know,
Speaker 1: they didn't find any any marijuana. We had thrown it
Speaker 1: into the fire. Um I got forty hours of community
Speaker 1: service and court costs and my friend got a five fine,
Speaker 1: a year of probation, a year of drug testing that
Speaker 1: he had to pay for, he had to go to
Speaker 1: alcoholic and drug addicts classes that he had to pay for.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure I don't need to tell you the
Speaker 1: difference between myself and my friend. Um So that was
Speaker 1: that was what opened my eyes first hand in in
Speaker 1: a front row seat to the racial disparity that that
Speaker 1: our criminal legal system inflicts on people who don't look
Speaker 1: like me. Okay, So into that disparity point, then key
Speaker 1: to talk a little bit about like the lawyer side
Speaker 1: of it, you know, because sometimes you're only as lucky
Speaker 1: as you are your lawyer is competent. Uh, talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about the role that lawyers sometimes play in
Speaker 1: the mystery of this because everyone isn't like yourself. Where
Speaker 1: they already had an interest in criminal justice, they already
Speaker 1: had the ability and the the the mental capacity to
Speaker 1: process and understand the law in the way that they
Speaker 1: could educate themselves. While they're incarcerated to work on their retrial,
Speaker 1: to to work on their appeal. So talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the reportance of a lawyer and did and
Speaker 1: the role that a lawyer played. Did a lawyer play
Speaker 1: a role and everything turning out, I don't want to
Speaker 1: say better for you, but not being as bad as
Speaker 1: it could have been. Right, It definitely was not as
Speaker 1: bad as it could have been. Um. You know, I
Speaker 1: was blessed and we were able to actually hire a lawyer,
Speaker 1: so I didn't have a federal public defender. And so
Speaker 1: I talked about this in the book where the women
Speaker 1: help as if their lawyers didn't do anything for them,
Speaker 1: that their lawyers just you know, had them to take
Speaker 1: a plea and you know, and they were pleading to
Speaker 1: ten fifteen, twenty years, right, Um, and just felt as
Speaker 1: if their lawyers didn't care. Their lawyers did listen to them.
Speaker 1: And so I had a completely different experience with my lawyer,
Speaker 1: which you know, it was one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: I decided that I wanted to become a public defender,
Speaker 1: because I wanted to be able to provide the same
Speaker 1: level of representation that he provided me being a lawyer
Speaker 1: that we paid. I wanted to provide that same level
Speaker 1: of representation to people who cannot afford it because I
Speaker 1: had heard the stories from the women in prison. And
Speaker 1: so when I was working as a public defender here
Speaker 1: in Nashville, UM, you know, I took the I took
Speaker 1: the government to task, right like when it came to
Speaker 1: that UM. I specifically remember one of the d as
Speaker 1: she offered. I had two clients and they both had
Speaker 1: the same drugs, um everything. And she offered my white
Speaker 1: client drug treatment and offered my block client to just
Speaker 1: plead guilty to this charge and to pay a fine
Speaker 1: and this stuff and up. And I said, well, wait
Speaker 1: a minute. I was just like, you offered Mr such
Speaker 1: and such, you know, to go to drug treatment and
Speaker 1: to have the opportunity to have this removed from their
Speaker 1: record if they complete it. But you offered you know,
Speaker 1: Mr such and such here, you know, to plead to this,
Speaker 1: to have a felony on their record, and to just
Speaker 1: pay this fine. I said, you know, what's what's the difference?
Speaker 1: And she was just like, well, I mean, does Mr
Speaker 1: such and such the one that she offered the fine
Speaker 1: two was a black man? She was like, what does
Speaker 1: he even want drug? Treatment. So again, you know, so
Speaker 1: I was very cognizant of this, and I would call
Speaker 1: them mouth on and I'm just like, so you need
Speaker 1: to tell me that you see the value in my
Speaker 1: white client's life where you're giving him the opportunity to
Speaker 1: have this six months off his record so it doesn't
Speaker 1: follow him the rest of his life. But you don't
Speaker 1: see that same value in my black line because you
Speaker 1: just assume that black people don't won't treatment, that black
Speaker 1: people are just out here just doing drugs simply because
Speaker 1: that's just what they do and they don't care what
Speaker 1: as white people just like, oh, well, you know, it's
Speaker 1: a problem, you know. And it's the same thing, you know,
Speaker 1: when we look at you know, the crack cocaine and
Speaker 1: the powder cocaine, you know, and and opio it's you know,
Speaker 1: now it's a whole it's a whole epidemic, and we
Speaker 1: want to get people treatment. But when black people, you know,
Speaker 1: are using drugs, and we wanted to criminalize it, and
Speaker 1: and it is the very same thing with every single
Speaker 1: right It's the very same thing with marijuana, is that
Speaker 1: and and it just just really really boils down to
Speaker 1: the simple fact that in this system, we do not
Speaker 1: see the humanity and the dignity in the black and
Speaker 1: brown bodies that are coming in this system in the
Speaker 1: same manner that we see the dignity and the redemption
Speaker 1: in the white people that's coming through the criminal legal system.
Speaker 1: After the break, let's talk solutions. Let's talk solutions, Justin
Speaker 1: and Keta. I want to also find out from you,
Speaker 1: what are some ways that people who are in a
Speaker 1: similar situation like yourself can help themselves. While people like
Speaker 1: Justin try to fix the system, what can you do
Speaker 1: to help yourself within the existing broken system that we're in.
Speaker 1: This is beyond the scenes. We'll be right back on
Speaker 1: beyond the scenes. We are back and we are talking
Speaker 1: cannabis and just the different ways that the government is
Speaker 1: fig get out of what you got to give it
Speaker 1: up to the government. Boy, there's some slick ones. They
Speaker 1: know how to make something legal and then make you
Speaker 1: pay for it, even then turn around and profit from it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get to that in a second, But first, Justin,
Speaker 1: I know that you have been on the right side
Speaker 1: of this issue and fighting with political action committees to
Speaker 1: try and get the cannabis laws changed in this country.
Speaker 1: What is the government doing right now? Have you are
Speaker 1: politician in your assessment? Just just let's just go off
Speaker 1: and your assessment. Do you feel like anybody in Washington
Speaker 1: has heard your cries you and keep his cries about
Speaker 1: the need to change some of the cannabis laws. And
Speaker 1: and I am very pleased to report that there has
Speaker 1: already been a bill that has passed now twice in
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives called the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and
Speaker 1: Expungement Act or the MORE Act, which would in a
Speaker 1: comprehensive way and marijuana prohibition and his criminalization address federal
Speaker 1: convictions through an automatic re sentencing and and release system,
Speaker 1: so you know, those who are still incarcerated as Keto
Speaker 1: was for a federal crime would get relief as well
Speaker 1: as fund state level and local level expungement programs and
Speaker 1: what's known as social equity licensing structures to assist uh
Speaker 1: those who have been impacted by the War on drugs
Speaker 1: to get into the legal industry. But that's only the House.
Speaker 1: And I know, Roy, you talk a lot about the
Speaker 1: dysfunction in the Senate, and and that applies to marijuana
Speaker 1: as well. Um I am, I am truly of the
Speaker 1: belief that if if they held a closed door session
Speaker 1: just up or down do we continue marijuana prohibition, that
Speaker 1: that at least sixty senators in the Senate would say no.
Speaker 1: But given the that that's not how the Senate works,
Speaker 1: and given Mitch McConnell's absolute seeming glee at the prospect
Speaker 1: of young, poor people getting arrested for marijuana uh and
Speaker 1: his iron gripped ruling of his Republican caucus, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult to see how we get to sixty votes given
Speaker 1: the legislative filibuster. Okay, So then with that being said,
Speaker 1: you decide to found the Bullpeck, you leave, you leave Normal,
Speaker 1: and then you create a whole new pack, and you go,
Speaker 1: all right, we gotta get this straight at the federal level.
Speaker 1: What inspired that change? And how does the Bullpeck? How
Speaker 1: do you fight cannabis at the federal level. So one
Speaker 1: of the things that I've thought about a whole lot
Speaker 1: in the last few years when I was still at Normal.
Speaker 1: Corey Gardner was running for re election and he was
Speaker 1: a big champion of of the Safe Banking Act, so
Speaker 1: essentially to legalize the profits of the sale of licensed
Speaker 1: marijuana companies, but not the people who consume it. And
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm in favor of the I Banking
Speaker 1: Act as an incremental measure. But uh, he he was
Speaker 1: defeated in in his his effort to be re elected
Speaker 1: by hicken Looper, h Senator Hick excuse me. And the
Speaker 1: Republican narrative in the Senate Caucus is, you know, marijuana
Speaker 1: didn't save Corey, and I think that's entirely disingenuous argument.
Speaker 1: I think that if Jesus Christ himself came second, came
Speaker 1: to Colorado and told every voter to vote for Corey Gardner,
Speaker 1: he still would have lost. It had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with marijuana. Uh. So, my hope is with the Bullpack
Speaker 1: working with allies UM to help unseat Republican prohibitionists in
Speaker 1: the United States Senate. And we're particularly looking at states
Speaker 1: like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio UM and possibly will expand the
Speaker 1: map depending on how how our resources go. But I
Speaker 1: think if we can flip that mentality that uh continuing
Speaker 1: to support marijuana criminalization can contribute to a Republican electoral feat,
Speaker 1: then that will help motivate more Republicans to realize that
Speaker 1: it's time to as centered why didn't keep saying it.
Speaker 1: Get with the program, justin Can I recommend that you
Speaker 1: all like focus on Tennessee so that we can get
Speaker 1: rid of Marshall Blackburn and that will help tremendously. You
Speaker 1: and I should talk after this offline about about what's
Speaker 1: going on in Tennessee. I'd love to hear if there
Speaker 1: is a pathway to do it and I can help
Speaker 1: absolutely keep then how what are some ways you know
Speaker 1: you've spoken to last break about it's a public defender,
Speaker 1: being an advocate for your clients who may not necessarily
Speaker 1: know all of the different avenues that are available to them,
Speaker 1: because you know, especially as black people, you know we're talking,
Speaker 1: you know, just take whatever they all from you, just
Speaker 1: take to do you don't, don't fight it. And then
Speaker 1: when you get out of jail, you are dealing with
Speaker 1: you're dealing with the society that treats you like you
Speaker 1: have a scarlet letter, and you're dealing with people who
Speaker 1: will make who will assume you to be what you
Speaker 1: were and never see you for what you could possibly be.
Speaker 1: What are some of the ways that people who have
Speaker 1: been negatively affected by this war on cannabis were the
Speaker 1: ways that they can benefit from the industry today. So
Speaker 1: you know, you're exactly right, because when you do leave prison,
Speaker 1: there is a host of collateral consequences that that we
Speaker 1: deal with simply because of this right UM. You know,
Speaker 1: where it comes to finding jobs, where it comes to
Speaker 1: housing and those types of things. But I think that
Speaker 1: it is important to have our voices heard when we're
Speaker 1: talking about any of this cannabis legislation, right and what
Speaker 1: should be done. And so I work at two different organizations,
Speaker 1: like locally and on the national level and UM. Locally
Speaker 1: is an organization called Free Hearts and UM it is
Speaker 1: an organization that is run by directly impacted women. So
Speaker 1: everyone that that is employed there has been directly impacted,
Speaker 1: whether it has been themselves or family, family member and so.
Speaker 1: And we make sure that that our voices are heard
Speaker 1: when it comes to the variousif in local legislation and
Speaker 1: then on the National Council UM, the National Council for
Speaker 1: Incarcerating Formal Incarcerated Girls in Women. That is one of
Speaker 1: the main things that we do is that we make
Speaker 1: sure that directly impacted women and our voices are heard
Speaker 1: when it comes to any type of legislation that is
Speaker 1: going to be beneficial for us. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: that is the thing that I would suggest that people do,
Speaker 1: is that people really get involved because there are no
Speaker 1: representatives who have um any type of directly you know,
Speaker 1: experience when it comes to the criminal legal system, which
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why I chose to run
Speaker 1: for Congress, right, because again, you know, we have people
Speaker 1: that are making these laws, but they are not impacted
Speaker 1: by them, and so you know, we definitely need people
Speaker 1: who understand the issue, people who have been there, people
Speaker 1: who can say, no, this may sound good, but when
Speaker 1: we actually look at this, this is going to be harmful.
Speaker 1: And this is the reason why, right, you know, like
Speaker 1: if we add this end, this is going to negatively
Speaker 1: impact to black and brown communities. Right. And so even
Speaker 1: though what we may have some legislation that looks good
Speaker 1: on the front end, if we start to really peel
Speaker 1: it back and really look at what it's going to do,
Speaker 1: is it going to be beneficial for everyone? Right? And
Speaker 1: so I think it's really important that those of us
Speaker 1: that have experienced a criminal legal system that we are
Speaker 1: on the forefront of this, that it is our voices
Speaker 1: that are heard and we have the same within our community,
Speaker 1: those that those of us that are closest to the
Speaker 1: problem are further from the resources, right, because it's one
Speaker 1: thing to draft this legislation, but when you're drafting in
Speaker 1: and you don't have someone who is directly impacted at
Speaker 1: the table, then there's a voice that's missing. And so
Speaker 1: you know, I would say to all of the organizations
Speaker 1: that are involved in any type of legislation, you know,
Speaker 1: particularly to legalize cannabis, is that if you don't have
Speaker 1: directly impacted people at the table, then you need to
Speaker 1: get them. And I'm really excited. You know, for years now,
Speaker 1: we've been working with the Marijuana Justice Coalition, which was
Speaker 1: convened by the Drug Policy Alliance and includes the National
Speaker 1: Council for Formal Incarcerated Women and Girls as well as
Speaker 1: just Leadership USA, which is another similarly uh you know,
Speaker 1: all led by formally incarcerated people UM and they were
Speaker 1: a part of that critical coalition that worked with Chairman
Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler's office to draft the more and you know,
Speaker 1: it also included the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Speaker 1: Rights and the a c l U, among others, and
Speaker 1: you know it it took through the Marijuana Justice Coalition
Speaker 1: we brought all these actors together and we uh, you know,
Speaker 1: right now we're going through the Cannabis Administration and an
Speaker 1: Opportunity Act, which was just introduced by UH Senate Majority
Speaker 1: Leader Chuck Schumer along with Senators Corey Booker and Ron
Speaker 1: Widen to make sure that we're hearing from all of
Speaker 1: the stakeholders before we come out with what kind of
Speaker 1: technical improvements we're going to be recommending, you know, a
Speaker 1: full throated endorsement and a full lobbying strategy. You know,
Speaker 1: we're at this precipice where depending on how pointedly we
Speaker 1: try to be proactive in reparative justice, it's not just
Speaker 1: gonna matter for the day after the legislation is going
Speaker 1: to assigned, but it's going to be a sea change
Speaker 1: compared to where we would be fifty years from now.
Speaker 1: And there's three critical components in my view of what
Speaker 1: is often just referred to as a catch all under
Speaker 1: social equity, and it needs to be both the criminal
Speaker 1: legal reform. So how is it that we're going to
Speaker 1: end the criminalization and make sure that we don't allow
Speaker 1: those who have been harmed be it through maintaining those
Speaker 1: criminal records, UH marijuana charges are one of the leading
Speaker 1: causes of deportation in this country. UM to you know,
Speaker 1: um two public benefits to everything as well as The
Speaker 1: second bucket is licensing for those who have been impacted
Speaker 1: or benefiting those who live in communities that have seen
Speaker 1: the criminalization of marijuana be used as that entry point
Speaker 1: by law enforcement who is essentially treating a community like
Speaker 1: an occupied zone. And then the third part is is
Speaker 1: actually like and this is what I fear doesn't get
Speaker 1: discussed enough, which is actual just direct economic reparations for
Speaker 1: those who have had their lives impact did or been
Speaker 1: incarcerated as a result of a marijuana charge. Evanston, Illinois
Speaker 1: is the first to my knowledge that that implemented a
Speaker 1: local ordinance. And I really hope and and I'm inspired
Speaker 1: that we see that percolating more around the country. What
Speaker 1: Evanston did and and and I may be a little
Speaker 1: bit off in my characterization of it, but they made
Speaker 1: sure that they were going to set up upside a
Speaker 1: portion of the cannabis revenue that was generated by taxes
Speaker 1: in the local sales UH to be specifically earmarked to
Speaker 1: go to those who have been arrested UM in Evans
Speaker 1: who live in Evanston to help them by by homes
Speaker 1: or to pay off their mortgages, or to be rental assistance.
Speaker 1: Um so direct support for the impacted individuals in a perpetual,
Speaker 1: forward thinking, meaningful way, you know, being a person that
Speaker 1: is impacted you know by you know, this whole cannabis
Speaker 1: Marjana um, I still have a conviction on my record today.
Speaker 1: So for all of the people that are able to
Speaker 1: off off of me or one of those that are
Speaker 1: able to smoke it freely, like, you know, there's this
Speaker 1: whole thing. You know, it really bothers me, right, you know,
Speaker 1: to hear people talk about it so freely, because you know,
Speaker 1: here I am someone who literally experience all of those
Speaker 1: things that justin just said, like all the hosts of
Speaker 1: collateral consequences associated with the marijuana conviction. But yeah, when
Speaker 1: I go to Denver, Colorado, when I'm sitting us on
Speaker 1: a patio eating it, I see white people walking past
Speaker 1: me smoking it freely, you know, people talking about you know,
Speaker 1: edibles freely here. But but yet here I am with
Speaker 1: being treated as a second class citizen for something that
Speaker 1: people are doing freely and legally now and selling legally,
Speaker 1: which you also can't do dependent on the state. Most
Speaker 1: if I could just one, I wouldn't want to put
Speaker 1: a fine point on this. When we talk about expungements
Speaker 1: of records and and and ceilings or whatever it is
Speaker 1: that the local jurisdiction determines it absolutely needs to be
Speaker 1: demanded that it is automatic too off, And we see
Speaker 1: city councils or state legislatures or even federal representatives trying
Speaker 1: to equate a new petition based process. Um as if
Speaker 1: that's going to make justice raindown for like manna from heaven,
Speaker 1: it's just an asking for permission. You're you're you're still
Speaker 1: asking for permission. And too often people won't even know
Speaker 1: about that new program, or if they do know about it,
Speaker 1: they're being expected to navigate a very complicated judicial breaucracy.
Speaker 1: And that's why, you know, we're really pleased to see
Speaker 1: in in the new bill by by Senate Leader Schumer
Speaker 1: uh that it would be an automatic process and that
Speaker 1: those who had convictions would be required to have those
Speaker 1: uh released and be notified. Being notified is an important
Speaker 1: thing too. Just because you had an expungement, if you
Speaker 1: don't know it, you're still checking that box. Um So
Speaker 1: those things need to work in harmony in order to
Speaker 1: make sure that people can no longer be harlemed going forward.
Speaker 1: And one final thing, not only that it be atomatic,
Speaker 1: but that it be retroactive, because if it if it
Speaker 1: goes into effect today, ay, and if it passes and
Speaker 1: it goes into effect, you know, whenever, if it's not retroactive,
Speaker 1: I don't receive the benefit from him, right, you know,
Speaker 1: because we're talking about you know, my conviction that is
Speaker 1: from you know, two thousand and two. Right, So not
Speaker 1: only that it be automatic, but also that it be
Speaker 1: made retroactive. Well, I feel like, you know, I asked
Speaker 1: you all for solutions and you present it nine more
Speaker 1: problems that also needs solutions to this issue. And I'm
Speaker 1: gonna ask you about a tenth one. And I hate
Speaker 1: to ask it, but I got to because we we
Speaker 1: had We got to get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 1: This is like a nine front war that you all
Speaker 1: are waging, the two of you. What role do the
Speaker 1: companies that have already benefited from the legalization in marijuana,
Speaker 1: who are now lobbying to keep it a legal fit
Speaker 1: release so that it doesn't cut into the profits play
Speaker 1: in keeping marijuana sales licenses out of the hands of
Speaker 1: so many people who deserve them. That is a billion
Speaker 1: dollar question currently, it's going to be a forty five
Speaker 1: billion dollar question in a couple of years. Uh, it's
Speaker 1: projected to by um and it's going to be a
Speaker 1: multi trillion conversation in in just decades. Unfortunately, marijuana reform
Speaker 1: is not going to escape the same kind of legislative
Speaker 1: capture that we see in every other aspect of American
Speaker 1: style capitalism. And you know, I I know some of
Speaker 1: the lobbyists from the marijuana industry who are you know,
Speaker 1: just beating the drum about how, no, we need to
Speaker 1: be incremental in this, we need to be incremental in this.
Speaker 1: We we can't go too far too fast, and they're
Speaker 1: they're glossing it up to make it seem like they're
Speaker 1: earnestly trying to get things done. But for every day
Speaker 1: that goes by that we don't see comprehensive reform, we
Speaker 1: see the entrenchment of the state siloed marketplaces because, unlike
Speaker 1: any other consumer good, it is illegal to have interstate
Speaker 1: commerce on marijuana because of federal prohibition, and in some
Speaker 1: states like Pennsylvania or Florida, among others, we see a
Speaker 1: hyper limited number of licenses that are allowed, and you know,
Speaker 1: fifty thou dollar nonrefundable application fee in West Virginia, for example,
Speaker 1: just for the right to be considered for a license,
Speaker 1: not to get it, not not not a pre approval,
Speaker 1: just to be considered. Um. And it really is just
Speaker 1: doubling down on the class war that that is inflicted
Speaker 1: or and just infected in so much of of American society.
Speaker 1: So we talked about the role that you know, the
Speaker 1: media is played in influencing public perception of cannabis. What
Speaker 1: can we do to change the political perception of it.
Speaker 1: When you're talking about politicians who I'm old school and
Speaker 1: I'm Christian values. I just want to make sure that
Speaker 1: we're doing it right. How do you change the minds
Speaker 1: of those people, Keta. How do you get elected officials
Speaker 1: to just be honest, to just be real and just
Speaker 1: go it's not that bad. I mean, I have Christian values, right,
Speaker 1: but I mean what does that mean? I would say
Speaker 1: that what some of these Republicans call Christian values are
Speaker 1: not Christian values at all. Right, Um? And so I
Speaker 1: think we, you know, we need to start breaking these
Speaker 1: things down, and we need to start calling these things out,
Speaker 1: but also too, we've got to change the narrative around
Speaker 1: these things because again, you know, we talked earlier in
Speaker 1: the show about the you know, who is associated with
Speaker 1: this marijuana and with cannabis, right, And so I think,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to start changing the narrative around
Speaker 1: that and say, you know, like, this is happening to
Speaker 1: every day average people, right, like myself, someone who's never
Speaker 1: been involved in the criminal legal system. And if this
Speaker 1: can happen to me, this can also happen to you.
Speaker 1: And so I think that, you know, it all comes
Speaker 1: down to seeing the humanity and people, right, because you know,
Speaker 1: when we look at you know, Dr J and Snoop Dogg,
Speaker 1: you know, Miss McConnell is going to be like, I
Speaker 1: ain't got nothing in common with him, right, But when
Speaker 1: you start to bring in you know, um, Mr Mitchell,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying, who is serving you know,
Speaker 1: fifteen years in prison? You know what I'm saying for
Speaker 1: cannabis and he's a Republican, right, um, you know, and
Speaker 1: then when you start to break those down, then it's
Speaker 1: just like, oh, well, you know what this really could
Speaker 1: be me? And then you start to see the humanity
Speaker 1: and it's unfortunate that we have to do that for
Speaker 1: you to for people to even see the humanity is
Speaker 1: that you know, I'm a human being. Why can't you
Speaker 1: just see the humanity in me just as a person.
Speaker 1: But we know that that doesn't work, and so that
Speaker 1: is a lot of the things that we have been
Speaker 1: doing is that you know, we when we are advocating
Speaker 1: for legislation, we are bringing in people that look like
Speaker 1: them and say, hey, you know what, I'm harmed a
Speaker 1: buy this too. And then that's when they take a
Speaker 1: step back and they look at this and they's like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know what, maybe we do need to start changing
Speaker 1: some things, right. And that's why I say, you know,
Speaker 1: this change is going to come about from the ground right,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a whole movement thing, that's a whole
Speaker 1: organizing thing, right, And so it's gonna come about from
Speaker 1: the ground up, like you know, it's not gonna come
Speaker 1: from the top down, like we've seen that, right, And
Speaker 1: if we're waiting for anything to happen from the top down,
Speaker 1: it is not going to happen. Change is going to
Speaker 1: come about by the movement. Like we look at like
Speaker 1: movements that have taken place all across this country. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying over the past, you know, fifty
Speaker 1: sixty years, that changes come from the ground, right like
Speaker 1: the organizing, you know what I'm saying, from from everybody
Speaker 1: all across the country coming together, that is what is
Speaker 1: going to that that is what it is going to
Speaker 1: feel the change. And and we're starting to see this,
Speaker 1: you know, where people from different backgrounds, people you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, you know, from different classes. You know,
Speaker 1: people are coming together around these issues and saying, you
Speaker 1: know what, we want change, and then they are pushing
Speaker 1: their representatives, their legislatures, legislators, um, you know, for this
Speaker 1: particular a change. And so I just believe, you know,
Speaker 1: particularly being someone who is part of this movement, that
Speaker 1: that is where the change is going to come from.
Speaker 1: Justin how much is promoting medicinal marijuana help in your
Speaker 1: efforts to get people on board just a little bit
Speaker 1: and then get them to look at the broader issue
Speaker 1: as a whole. Or have we exhausted medicinal marijuana as
Speaker 1: an entry point into this conversation? Oh, it's it's certainly
Speaker 1: a great entry point on the escalator of radicalization. As
Speaker 1: I like to refer to it um depending on the lawmaker, right.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the those areas where you know,
Speaker 1: you have to know your audience, particularly with you know,
Speaker 1: amongst the veterans community. Right now, a v A doctor
Speaker 1: would be fired if they are practicing within a state
Speaker 1: that has a medical marijuana program, of which there are
Speaker 1: thirty nine, uh, if they fill out that state legal form.
Speaker 1: And that's because they're a federal employee. So there there's
Speaker 1: an amendment. It's been championed by Representatives are A Bluemen
Speaker 1: Hour and Barbara Lee, who are the co chairs of
Speaker 1: the Congressional Cannabis Caucus in the House, to make that
Speaker 1: small change, and we just got it approved um to
Speaker 1: be as part of the n d a A just
Speaker 1: you know, just back in July. So it's those kind
Speaker 1: of things that where we can open hearts and minds
Speaker 1: to look at it from a different angle. UM that
Speaker 1: can help just break open the head, if you will.
Speaker 1: And if I can add one one point t Keita's
Speaker 1: last point, which I thought is phenomenal and change comes
Speaker 1: from the ground up. There's an organization Supernova Women that
Speaker 1: is all women of color lad there. They started in
Speaker 1: Oakland and now they're they're really you know, spreading around
Speaker 1: the country, inspiring more people. And they put out a
Speaker 1: new report at the beginning of this year that showed
Speaker 1: that every one dollar invested in their social equity licensing
Speaker 1: system and small businesses, it yielded a hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: return on investment in the locality just in creating and
Speaker 1: supporting small businesses. And then when they look at the
Speaker 1: numbers from a different lens, for every one dollar of
Speaker 1: the revenue invested yielded when you include educational support, re
Speaker 1: entry services, job training, placement expand to an assistance, etcetera,
Speaker 1: it yielded four hundred and fifty six percent return on
Speaker 1: investment for every one dollar spent um. So you know,
Speaker 1: right now, super and over, women's trying to make sure
Speaker 1: everybody's seeing this report, seeing the data and and hopefully
Speaker 1: Oakland can be a good example for localities around the
Speaker 1: country on how to do a better job of prioritizing
Speaker 1: local ownership and diversely reflective ownership and communities everywhere. Well,
Speaker 1: justin Strickle from the Bullpeck, thank you so much. And
Speaker 1: key to the book is bending the Arc my journey
Speaker 1: from prison to politics. I cannot thank you all enough
Speaker 1: for going beyond the scenes with me. Thank you so
Speaker 1: very much. Thank you. What's the Daily Show weeknight Craol
Speaker 1: on Comedy Central and stream full episodes anytime I'm on
Speaker 1: Paramount Plus. This has been a Comedy Central podcast