Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Ethan Edelman, and this is Psychoactive, a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. Psychoactive is the
Speaker 1: show where we talk about all things drugs. But any
Speaker 1: views expressed here do not represent those of I Heart Media,
Speaker 1: Protozoa Pictures, or their executives and employees. Indeed, as an
Speaker 1: inveterate contrarian, I can tell you they may not even
Speaker 1: represent my own. And nothing contained in this show should
Speaker 1: be used as medical advice or encouragement to use any
Speaker 1: type of drug. Hello, Psychoactive listeners. Today's episode is a
Speaker 1: really special treat for me because it's quite personal in
Speaker 1: a way. I mean, first because it involves in New York,
Speaker 1: which is where I was born and where I live,
Speaker 1: And it also involves work that I've been involved in
Speaker 1: for many decades, finally coming to a beautiful fruition just
Speaker 1: a few months ago. I've been involved one way or
Speaker 1: another in the effort to legalize marijuana, first for medical purposes,
Speaker 1: then for all at outs for many decades, and it's
Speaker 1: been a major priority of the Drug Policy Alliance or
Speaker 1: d p A, which is the organization I founded. Also,
Speaker 1: my guest today is Melissa Moore, who came to work
Speaker 1: for me at Drug Policy Alliance a number of years
Speaker 1: ago and who has been the director of d p
Speaker 1: a's efforts specifically in New York City and New York
Speaker 1: State in recent years. She's really the one who spearheaded
Speaker 1: the effort in New York to legalize marijuana earlier this spring,
Speaker 1: and I have to say it's a major breakthrough, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, New York is maybe the fifteen state or
Speaker 1: so to legalize marijuana, but it now represents the gold
Speaker 1: standard for how to do this right because they learned
Speaker 1: the lessons from around the country and how to regulate
Speaker 1: the industry more properly, how to keep big industry at bay,
Speaker 1: how to incorporate social and racial equity provisions that actually
Speaker 1: could be effective and effectively imp meant it. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna hear from Melissa about how and why this victory
Speaker 1: in New York UH proved so momentous, and we'll also
Speaker 1: talk a bit about what another New York politician, Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 1: who's the Senate majority leader in Washington, is doing UH
Speaker 1: to try to legalize marijuana at the national level. So Melissa,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, um, you know, for coming on
Speaker 1: the show and for talking to us about this. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for having me. I think back
Speaker 1: about our work in New York and it really dates
Speaker 1: back to the late nineties, and we worked on these
Speaker 1: hosts of other issues, reforming the draconian Rockefeller drug laws,
Speaker 1: which had very little to do with marijuana, and a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of other issues, needle exchange, overdose treatment, what
Speaker 1: have you, uh, and then medical marijuana and now marijuana legalization.
Speaker 1: And so the first question I want to ask you is, so,
Speaker 1: why did New York finally do it now? I mean,
Speaker 1: Color one, Washington led the way back in New York
Speaker 1: is like theft or sixteenth State. But why now, you know.
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of different factors that
Speaker 1: have led to this culmination of finally being able to
Speaker 1: pass through comprehensive marijuana legalization and reform in New York.
Speaker 1: The excesses of the enforcement and criminalization under prohibition, the
Speaker 1: way that there have been extreme racial disparities in the
Speaker 1: way that enforcement has been carried out all across the state,
Speaker 1: the absolute lack of, you know, anything beneficial that can
Speaker 1: be pointed to out of that, but the huge detrimental
Speaker 1: effects that that's had all across the state of New York.
Speaker 1: And now there's been this growing tide of other states
Speaker 1: that have legalized through ballot initiatives, especially our neighbors here,
Speaker 1: you know, with Massachusetts having gone a couple of years
Speaker 1: before us and then New Jersey. I think that gave
Speaker 1: an additional push. I mean the fact that there has
Speaker 1: been such a huge amount of momentum around legalization, public
Speaker 1: opinion in New York supporting it by a two to
Speaker 1: margin for so many years now, and actually in the
Speaker 1: more recent polls, there was a poll showing that actually
Speaker 1: a majority of Republican voters in New York also support legalization.
Speaker 1: So we're at a point when there's just such a
Speaker 1: preponderance of of support for it that it was more
Speaker 1: a question of like what the how would be as
Speaker 1: opposed to whether or not on the merits of legalization
Speaker 1: New York could move um, So it was a matter
Speaker 1: of crafting bill right. Well, you know, I'm thinking back, right,
Speaker 1: there were two elements of marijuana reform that drop policy
Speaker 1: Line spent a huge amount of time on. Right. The
Speaker 1: first was the issue around legalizing marijuana for medical purposes,
Speaker 1: where New York took quite a while um and then
Speaker 1: had a work really turning a bad law into a
Speaker 1: much better one. And the second was the issue around
Speaker 1: these racially disproportioned at marijuana rests, which just when crazy
Speaker 1: under former mayors Julianni and Bloomberg. So, talking first of
Speaker 1: all about the marijuana rest one, tell our listeners a
Speaker 1: bit more about that whole effort and how it played in,
Speaker 1: you know, to the success of legalization. And recently so
Speaker 1: it's been along the case that there has been just
Speaker 1: rampant racial disparities in the way that marijuana prohibition has
Speaker 1: been enforced across New York State, and this is true
Speaker 1: of the rest of the country as well. But when
Speaker 1: we look back to, you know, the foundations of these laws,
Speaker 1: it was really looking at what are different mechanisms of
Speaker 1: control and we saw that really distinctly in New York
Speaker 1: where even after the nineteen seventies seven decriminalization law was passed, well, actually,
Speaker 1: let me just interject for a second, right theory just
Speaker 1: or listener to understand. Back in the seventies there was
Speaker 1: this wave of marijuana liberalization and decriminalization, and eleven states
Speaker 1: voted through the legislative process, no ballot and issues were
Speaker 1: involved to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana,
Speaker 1: either at home or in your pocket, and New York
Speaker 1: was one of those. In New York, in fact, did
Speaker 1: decriminalize marijuana back then in the mid seventies, as did California.
Speaker 1: Marijuana arrest dropped dramatically at that time, but then they
Speaker 1: began to reep up during the eighties and into the
Speaker 1: nineties to the point where we had what was it,
Speaker 1: fifty thousand people getting arrested each year from marijuana possession,
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly young, black and brown main that's exactly right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So we went from a period right after the law
Speaker 1: was passed where there were like two thousand, three thousand
Speaker 1: arrests total across the entire state for low level cannabis possession,
Speaker 1: and then you enter into the stopping frisk era and
Speaker 1: broken windows policing, and that's skyrockets then, so that by
Speaker 1: we're at a point where they're fifty thousand arrest just
Speaker 1: in New York City alone for low level cannabis possession,
Speaker 1: and the vast majority of those were the result of
Speaker 1: unconstitutional stop and frisk interactions where because of a loophole
Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventi seven decriminalization law. If cannabis was
Speaker 1: in private possession or private view, it was a violation
Speaker 1: if it was in public view. So if somebody was
Speaker 1: following the instructions of an officer who said, hey, empty
Speaker 1: your pockets or open up your book bag, suddenly that
Speaker 1: would put the cannabis into public view and make it
Speaker 1: a misdemeanor arrest. So so basically you're saying the cops
Speaker 1: were engaging in a subterfuge, right, they knew that so
Speaker 1: long as marijuana was in your pocket, they couldn't arrest you.
Speaker 1: At best, they could give you a fine, and they
Speaker 1: weren't going to see it anyway. But when they're doing
Speaker 1: this aggressive stop and frisk all around the city, targeted
Speaker 1: young black and brown man, when they're incentivized to arrest
Speaker 1: lots of people, they basically say, hey, did you mind
Speaker 1: if I put my hands in your pocket? And the
Speaker 1: kids scared and he said okay, and outcomes to marijuana,
Speaker 1: and in that process it goes from being a non
Speaker 1: arrestible in fraction to now being in public view and
Speaker 1: therefore you know something they can be arrested for. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's a misdemeanor arrest and that's what we saw over
Speaker 1: and over again with you know, the enforcement demographics not
Speaker 1: at all being representative of the actual demographics of people
Speaker 1: who use cannabis across New York, which we know from
Speaker 1: Department of Health data and other government data to be
Speaker 1: pretty equal generally speaking across you know, different age ranges
Speaker 1: and ethnic and racial groups. But when we look at
Speaker 1: the enforcement for cannabis and especially low level arrests, like
Speaker 1: we were just talking about, where it's really about, you know,
Speaker 1: a cop rolling up on somebody is saying, hey, emptier
Speaker 1: pockets within these unconstitutional stops and searches, that's where we get,
Speaker 1: you know, eighty six percent, eighty seven percent of the
Speaker 1: arrest being primarily black and Latin X New Yorkers, and
Speaker 1: primarily young people, you know, the vast majority of those
Speaker 1: being people under twenty five years old, when folks are
Speaker 1: at a really crucial point in their lives, when you know,
Speaker 1: they're trying to figure out what their career trajectory is
Speaker 1: going to be, determining if they're going to be able
Speaker 1: to pursue higher education, and so many of those opportunities
Speaker 1: were blocked off for people because of criminalization. So it's
Speaker 1: certainly about the overall scope of arrests, which is harrowing.
Speaker 1: You know, at eight hundred thousand instances of low level
Speaker 1: cannabis possession being arrested over you know, just the last
Speaker 1: twenty five years alone. But then when you look at
Speaker 1: the ripple effects and the huge devastating lifelong consequences for
Speaker 1: people beyond just that arrest moment into the entirety of
Speaker 1: the rest of their lives, that's also what we have
Speaker 1: to contend with in New York. So, I mean, Melissa,
Speaker 1: what I recall from those days is that initially, lots
Speaker 1: of people, including me, it just assumed it was you know, guys,
Speaker 1: young guys out there smoking a joint in public and
Speaker 1: getting caught for smoking weed in public. But it wasn't.
Speaker 1: Most of it was to stop and frisk. And the
Speaker 1: other thing that lots of people assumed was workdamn. I mean,
Speaker 1: black kids must smoke more weed than white kids. But
Speaker 1: in fact, all the evidence showed that if you were
Speaker 1: to randomly stop a hundred black kids under brown kids
Speaker 1: that are white kids in almost any city in America,
Speaker 1: virtually the same percent of them would have marijuana in
Speaker 1: their pocket. Um. But in every city and state in America,
Speaker 1: the black kids were two to ten times more likely
Speaker 1: to get busted than the white kids. Now, it took
Speaker 1: a little while for this to mature as a racial
Speaker 1: justice issue, but I think it did eventually take off, right,
Speaker 1: that's right. And you know, the data that we have
Speaker 1: from the Department of Health in New York City in particular,
Speaker 1: shows that young white people in New York City actually
Speaker 1: use cannabis at like significantly higher rate than black and
Speaker 1: Latin X young people in the city. And yet what
Speaker 1: we see is the enforcement is pretty much the exact
Speaker 1: inverse of that, UM. And that really comes down to
Speaker 1: exactly what you're talking about is just how do we
Speaker 1: actually approach this issue entirely? And so we have to
Speaker 1: delve in and look more deeply at you know, why
Speaker 1: is it then that only certain populations of kids and
Speaker 1: you know we're talking about kids, but you know across
Speaker 1: adult populations too, Why is this enforcement so laser targeted
Speaker 1: in these ways? Um, and really changing the conversation to
Speaker 1: be focused around those pillars of racial and economic justice,
Speaker 1: which we can get into more as well. I think
Speaker 1: was you know, a real turning point in terms of
Speaker 1: how the conversation around legalization was shaped in New York,
Speaker 1: but then also for the rest of the country as
Speaker 1: well well. I mean the truth is, you know, when
Speaker 1: the Blasio became mayor of New York about seven years ago,
Speaker 1: he was attuned to this issue, but not bold. I mean,
Speaker 1: the really atrocious stuff happened I think beginning under Giuliani,
Speaker 1: because it was a period where arrest for crack and
Speaker 1: harrow when we're declining, and the cops were eager to
Speaker 1: be out there and they were incentivized to make arrest.
Speaker 1: For senior police management, it was a good management technique
Speaker 1: because that they knew that if they had cops busting
Speaker 1: kids for weed, they knew they weren't just sitting in
Speaker 1: a car eating a donut or screwing off and on
Speaker 1: the street level police guy, I mean, for them, it
Speaker 1: was a lot easier to just bust some kid for
Speaker 1: weed than it was to be dealing with a homeless
Speaker 1: person or domestic disturbance, somebody's going to puke in their car,
Speaker 1: I mean, all this sort of stuff. So everything sort
Speaker 1: of came together Juliani. You know, in two thousand, before
Speaker 1: nine eleven, I think there were sixty marijuana possession arrests.
Speaker 1: And then Bloomberg comes in, you know, new police chief,
Speaker 1: but does the same thing, and he stands by it
Speaker 1: year after year after year. And when then do Blasio
Speaker 1: comes in, he's under pressure from the progressive community to
Speaker 1: pull back, but not as far as he should have. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean even under the de Blasio years, the racial
Speaker 1: disparities remained pretty much the same at those extreme levels
Speaker 1: for black and Latin next New Yorkers. Right, although the
Speaker 1: total numbers of arrests are coming down dramatically, total numbers
Speaker 1: of arrests had dropped. So you're going from fifty sixty
Speaker 1: thousand arrest of the year down to twenty thousand, down
Speaker 1: to ten thousand. I mean last year it was down
Speaker 1: to a few thousand or so. Last year it was
Speaker 1: actually under a thousand for New York City, under a thousand.
Speaker 1: So it had come down. The total number of rests
Speaker 1: had come down, but was galling. Is that the racial
Speaker 1: disparity just persists. But what it meant though was that
Speaker 1: as you're moving towards legalization, it meant that there was
Speaker 1: going to be a growing coalition who was going to
Speaker 1: be supportive of legalizing but also very clear that there
Speaker 1: had to be a racial justice component to this. Right,
Speaker 1: that's right, and I think it really kind of helped
Speaker 1: frame the conversation, and that the pivot away from legalization
Speaker 1: to just like, oh, well, we don't have to go
Speaker 1: that far. We can just decriminalize, like we shouldn't rush
Speaker 1: to legalize, just didn't hold water in New York. You know,
Speaker 1: we've tried that since nineteen seven, and we ended up
Speaker 1: with eight hundred thousand arrests for low level cannabis possession. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, just patently in New York, decriminalization for cannabis
Speaker 1: as opposed to legalization was no longer acceptable. And I
Speaker 1: think the other piece of that also was, as we
Speaker 1: were talking about before, all the other impacts within people's lives,
Speaker 1: they don't get relief from just decriminalization in the same
Speaker 1: way that you can under legalization. We're actually removing these
Speaker 1: things from the criminal penal code, and that's what's required
Speaker 1: in order to deal with a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: the housing, the employment, the child wealth, our consequences, the
Speaker 1: immigration consequences. You know. I'm thinking also that when you
Speaker 1: go back to the first successful marijuana legalization initiatives UM
Speaker 1: in Colorado, and Washington back in two and in Oregon
Speaker 1: and Alaska. Those were places where the percent of the
Speaker 1: population that's black is very small, these western states, and
Speaker 1: the racial justice issue was out and about there. But
Speaker 1: we also knew that it was not going to be
Speaker 1: a winning issue on a ballot an issue you have
Speaker 1: to appeal to the center who were not going to
Speaker 1: care about these issues. And so my sense was that
Speaker 1: if we were going to prevailed, the racial justice issue
Speaker 1: was gonna move forward, it was gonna have to be
Speaker 1: not through the ballot initiative process, but once we got
Speaker 1: to state legislative reform, where black and Latino caucus is
Speaker 1: an activism can make a difference. The one big exception
Speaker 1: to that, of course, was the other ballot initiative on
Speaker 1: marijuana quasi legalization in d C. Because that's the city
Speaker 1: that's fift black. It was also a particular challenge because
Speaker 1: when we started out, the white population of DC was
Speaker 1: two to one in favor, but the black population was
Speaker 1: majority against. And I remember in that campaign we poured
Speaker 1: a lot of resources and made sure the leadership of
Speaker 1: that campaign was black, and in fact, by the time
Speaker 1: we finally want it, you know, in November, it didn't
Speaker 1: actually legalize over the counter sale, but almost everything else.
Speaker 1: In fact, we had moved that population substantially. Now in
Speaker 1: New York, there was a really activist community around this stuff.
Speaker 1: And so you know, when people talk about what's so
Speaker 1: special about New York's legisl aation, why don't we just
Speaker 1: get into that right now? One of the things, not
Speaker 1: the only thing. One of the things is that it
Speaker 1: appears to really break substantial new ground when it comes
Speaker 1: to issues of addressing you know, the racist origins of
Speaker 1: the drug war, the racial disproportionality arrests. Just explain more
Speaker 1: about what makes New York so special in that regard. Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: New York is I think charting a pretty exciting new
Speaker 1: terrain in terms of what can be encompassed within legalization.
Speaker 1: And you know, that's been part of the bill for
Speaker 1: quite a while now, and I think is one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why, you know, along with the conversations around
Speaker 1: just the extreme disparities that we've seen in enforcement, really
Speaker 1: talking about this as a through line that we weren't
Speaker 1: just going to, you know, turn the page and act
Speaker 1: as though those you know, extreme targeted arrests had not
Speaker 1: taken place, and that there wasn't ongoing generational impact from that,
Speaker 1: And so part of the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act
Speaker 1: which passed in New York was inclusive of actual restitution
Speaker 1: to the community is that have been the most harmed,
Speaker 1: a significant portion of the cannabis tax revenue being reinvested
Speaker 1: back into those communities. So New York is not the
Speaker 1: first state to talk about integrating racial justice in I mean,
Speaker 1: we made an effort in California sixteen I know, the
Speaker 1: Illinois law that pass as a racial justice piece. The
Speaker 1: governor of New Jersey, Governor Murphy, is very strongly supportive
Speaker 1: of that. In Massachusetts got a piece of this, But
Speaker 1: what I generally hear from those states is that it
Speaker 1: hasn't been all that effective. But there's things about New
Speaker 1: York which suggests that you guys have actually found out
Speaker 1: a formula for really making that work. Yeah. So in
Speaker 1: New York, you know, even just within the legacy market,
Speaker 1: you know, as things are right now unregulated, it's about
Speaker 1: a three billion dollar industry. And so the initial projections
Speaker 1: for you know, the early days of setting up the
Speaker 1: program are around three d and fifty million dollars into
Speaker 1: the state coffers each year. Escalating up to over five
Speaker 1: billion dollars as we get in some of the out years,
Speaker 1: So huge buckets of money that we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: You know, given the scope of harm that was done
Speaker 1: under the marijuana a rest crusade, We've always been really
Speaker 1: clear that, you know, we can't just say oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: are bad and like move forward into legalization as though
Speaker 1: we didn't actually have to have some sort of mechanism
Speaker 1: to at least make an attempt to repair that harm.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna be able to, you know, go back
Speaker 1: and change those years of somebody's life when they had
Speaker 1: a criminal record for cannabis or when you know their
Speaker 1: child had been taken away because of just allegations of use.
Speaker 1: But you can have restitution. And so of the cannabis
Speaker 1: tax revenue that goes into New York State will go
Speaker 1: into the Community Grants Reinvestment fund that will be available
Speaker 1: for entities that are doing work within communities that have
Speaker 1: been harmed by the War on drugs, for populations that
Speaker 1: have been directly impacted by criminalization. So give me an example,
Speaker 1: like what kinds of programs will will benefit from this? Right?
Speaker 1: So this could be like youth after school programs, it
Speaker 1: could be re entry services for people who are exiting incarceration.
Speaker 1: It could be job training, um. But it really you know,
Speaker 1: even much more broad than that. It can be childcare,
Speaker 1: it could be nutritional services. And is there a way
Speaker 1: to make sure this is going to be supplemental over
Speaker 1: and above the existing funding for this, right exactly. So
Speaker 1: there's maintenance of effort language, which is the technical um
Speaker 1: bit that basically says this can't supplant other budgeted amounts.
Speaker 1: And that's also true for the component of the tax
Speaker 1: revenue that will go for public schools in New York. Um,
Speaker 1: so it'll be a boon for New York State schools
Speaker 1: as well, and then also to drug treatment and education
Speaker 1: programs with a real focus on harm reduction. But then
Speaker 1: there's a social equity side and the business piece of it, right,
Speaker 1: And I want to be you know, really clear again
Speaker 1: on that distinction, because not everybody who's been harmed, not
Speaker 1: every single person is going to want a cannabis business,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't necessarily cover all of the rest of it.
Speaker 1: And when there were so many people impacted in New York,
Speaker 1: we had to be really clear about the community reinvestment piece.
Speaker 1: But when we turn to the business side of things.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the things that's been so difficult
Speaker 1: for you know, the sort of fledgling programs in other
Speaker 1: states has been the fact that there's just such a
Speaker 1: lack of access to capital because of federal prohibition. It's
Speaker 1: really difficult for people to be able to get seed money,
Speaker 1: you know, even if they've gotten a social equity priority license.
Speaker 1: In same Massachusetts, just the fact that there isn't really
Speaker 1: the same mechanism to be able to access a small
Speaker 1: business loan or other sort of lending options that are
Speaker 1: available if somebody is starting up like an ice cream
Speaker 1: shop for example. Um, that's been a real problem. And
Speaker 1: so in New York, within the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act,
Speaker 1: the sponsors were really really clear about needing provisions like
Speaker 1: the incubator program that would actually be able to provide
Speaker 1: low and zero interest loans from the outset of the program,
Speaker 1: so that the social equity applicants would be able to
Speaker 1: have access to lending as well as technical assistants in
Speaker 1: legal counsel, anticipating some of the same sort of roadblocks
Speaker 1: and hurdles that we've seen in other states. So it
Speaker 1: means it if a young black man who's been busted
Speaker 1: for selling weed. Does it actually help him in applying
Speaker 1: for something the fact that he was busted for selling weed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So people who have been directly impacted for cannabis can
Speaker 1: apply under social equity status um, and there's a prioritization
Speaker 1: for people who themselves have been directly criminalized, and for
Speaker 1: people who have a family member, loved one, or had
Speaker 1: a parent, and then for people from communities. It's kind
Speaker 1: of like different tiers. You realize what a what a
Speaker 1: big switch that is. I mean, from the early years
Speaker 1: of some of the legalization efforts, actually, one of the
Speaker 1: provisions that had to be in there to reassure people
Speaker 1: was that people who have been busted before could not apply,
Speaker 1: and now, in fact New York is going to give
Speaker 1: them a preference, which I think is just a wonderful development. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we really turned it on its head entirely. And that
Speaker 1: was even a provision within the medical marijuana bill in
Speaker 1: New York that we certainly were not pleased about whatsoever.
Speaker 1: You know. I have to say also, like for people
Speaker 1: who get their backs up when they hear the phrase restitution,
Speaker 1: I mean, the bottom line is it's not just that
Speaker 1: you had the racial disproportionality in the way that these
Speaker 1: marijuana laws were enforced in New York, you know, for
Speaker 1: so many years, her so many people. But I tend
Speaker 1: to think about it also as restitution for the broader
Speaker 1: drug war in New York. Because it's not as if
Speaker 1: we're going to be legalizing heroin or cocaine and getting
Speaker 1: tax revenue from that anytime soon, if ever. But the
Speaker 1: number of people who were selling small amounts of heroin
Speaker 1: or cocaine and landing up in prison for five and
Speaker 1: ten and twenty years and also hundreds of thousands of people.
Speaker 1: So to me, the notion of applying tax revenue from
Speaker 1: a drug that was illegal and that's now legal, and
Speaker 1: making sure a significant disproportionate amount of that tax revenue
Speaker 1: goes individuals and communities that were most reamed out by
Speaker 1: the drug war, not not just about marijuana. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's kind of a great moral good and
Speaker 1: a great moral guidance optimistic this can actually work this
Speaker 1: time in New York. Yeah, I mean, I think a
Speaker 1: lot is going to come down to implementation. You know
Speaker 1: what the accountability in the oversight is for these provisions
Speaker 1: that are in there. There's a chief equity officer. And
Speaker 1: you know also, you know, having license categories in New
Speaker 1: York like operatives and on site consumption, both of which
Speaker 1: you know, we haven't really seen in other states, and
Speaker 1: you know, certainly provide fantastic entry points for people who
Speaker 1: don't in and of themselves independently have huge amounts of capital.
Speaker 1: Are you know, really exciting to think about. But I think,
Speaker 1: you know, going back to your point around the restitution
Speaker 1: in the community reinvestment piece, it wasn't just a matter
Speaker 1: of the instance of an arrest that has had an
Speaker 1: impact on people. There's also been generational economic harm from that,
Speaker 1: you know. The New York City Controller Scott Stringer, a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago did an analysis looking at the
Speaker 1: neighborhoods that had the highest marijuana arrest rates and then
Speaker 1: what the economic indicators were, and he found that seven
Speaker 1: out of the ten neighborhoods with the most dire marijuana
Speaker 1: arrest rates also had the absolute lowest economic indicators in
Speaker 1: the city. And that's you know, it's a correlation, is
Speaker 1: not a causation, but it certainly compounds what we see.
Speaker 1: And then we redid that analysis a couple of months ago.
Speaker 1: UM for areas outside of New York City as well,
Speaker 1: and it was pretty much the same thing that areas
Speaker 1: with highest marijuana arrest rates had some of the highest
Speaker 1: economic vulnerability, um, the highest need for people to be
Speaker 1: able to access like nutritional supplements like snap and other
Speaker 1: things that are really um, you know, a sign of
Speaker 1: the fact that people need additional supports, and also had
Speaker 1: some of the highest COVID positivity rates. And so as
Speaker 1: we're looking at that data, it just really showed that
Speaker 1: the structural factors that were at play, the structural racism,
Speaker 1: structural inequity that's woven into so many parts of our society,
Speaker 1: was showing up in cannabis enforcement, and that we could
Speaker 1: really take that as a microcosm both on the negative
Speaker 1: side of just looking at this as a case study
Speaker 1: of how enforcement was unparalleled in its racial disparities, but
Speaker 1: then also moving forward into fixing it. We'll be talking
Speaker 1: more after we hear this ad. You know, New York
Speaker 1: is not like California or Colorado, where replaces that already
Speaker 1: had a huge both illicit marijuana industry and a huge
Speaker 1: medical marijuana industry. It's not like we're huge growers the
Speaker 1: way that California's or some western states are. And there
Speaker 1: was an emerging medical marijuana market over the last few years,
Speaker 1: but it's not going back twenty years. It's more going
Speaker 1: back a few years now. I know that you have
Speaker 1: put provisions in this, some of which are intended not
Speaker 1: just on racial equity, but also to help small growers,
Speaker 1: small farmers, small entrepreneurs. You managed to get a law
Speaker 1: through here that's going to keep the big guys from
Speaker 1: getting too big. Can you just say a bit about
Speaker 1: the provisions and also what it was like managing all
Speaker 1: the for profit players as they try to pursue their
Speaker 1: own narrower interests. Yeah, you know, really important guardrails that
Speaker 1: were included within the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act. This
Speaker 1: is working really closely with the Assembly majority leader of
Speaker 1: Crystal People's Stokes Senator Liz Krueger, who are the bill
Speaker 1: sponsors who are really attuned to this. You know, had
Speaker 1: seen the way in which medical marijuana program had been
Speaker 1: implemented in New York State, the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: it's basically an oligopoly that was set up, you know,
Speaker 1: in the way that the governor swooped in at the
Speaker 1: last minute and changed a lot of the provisions UM
Speaker 1: very differently from what the campaign had been putting forward
Speaker 1: under the Compassionate Care Act for New York. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: you know, we we had that very recent example UM
Speaker 1: that people were looking at and you know, they they
Speaker 1: really determined we want to make sure that they were
Speaker 1: going to be multiple entry points UM for people who
Speaker 1: have been directly impacted, but also people from all across
Speaker 1: the state to be able to really make a go
Speaker 1: of it within this industry, you know, and that means
Speaker 1: family farmers, that means you know, people who want to
Speaker 1: have uh, you know, a small business where you know,
Speaker 1: maybe they're you know, processing. UM. There's a micro business
Speaker 1: license which will allow especially folks from the current you know,
Speaker 1: legacy or underground economy to be able to plug into
Speaker 1: the regulated space and make that transition or bridge over.
Speaker 1: And that's incredibly important, you know, you talk about you know,
Speaker 1: New York is not one of the largest cultivators in
Speaker 1: the country, but we do have the largest current market
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it's all underground, and there also
Speaker 1: is a big I mean, there's a huge number of
Speaker 1: New Yorkers involved in agriculture right exactly, So there's gotta
Speaker 1: be a lot of farmers and others who are looking
Speaker 1: at this thing and saying, maybe there's an opportunity in
Speaker 1: it for me, And it's not necessarily the case. It
Speaker 1: only the big guys are gonna be able to come
Speaker 1: in here and take this thing over from the get go.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. I mean, we don't want a situation
Speaker 1: where we're gonna have just Walmart weed, you know, like
Speaker 1: we want to have craft production. We want to have
Speaker 1: this be something that is able to you know, be
Speaker 1: a buttress for family farmers who have been facing you know,
Speaker 1: just years and years of devastating Floria dropouts in terms
Speaker 1: of the crop prices and getting a homegrow provision within
Speaker 1: the building that's crucially important. You know. Sometimes people in
Speaker 1: the industry they get so greedy and they want to
Speaker 1: they want to put in the law that people are
Speaker 1: not allowed to grow three or five or ten of
Speaker 1: their own plans, like even the alcohol, and just doesn't
Speaker 1: want to put in there that you can't make your
Speaker 1: own beer or a little booze at home. And for
Speaker 1: many people they forget that marijuana. I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: kind of intimacy of growing marijuana where people want to
Speaker 1: grow their own and it's a very personal thing. I
Speaker 1: sometimes look at some of the marijuana growers and I
Speaker 1: see their connection to the plant being almost analogous to
Speaker 1: this kind of sensual sort of freedom dimension of gun
Speaker 1: owners to their guns. You know that that that they're
Speaker 1: just it's it's a visceral sort of thing, you know.
Speaker 1: And I know in almost every state that Moosard's legalization,
Speaker 1: there's been a debate about what's called vertical integration, basically
Speaker 1: the extent to which any business can be vertically integrated
Speaker 1: in terms of being involved in the production of the
Speaker 1: product and the distribution of it and even the retail sale. Now,
Speaker 1: I know, what you are very careful to do was
Speaker 1: to really limit vertical integration and thereby limits the big
Speaker 1: players except for the smallest guys, right, that's right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the micro business license and the cooperative licenses are
Speaker 1: really the only ones that do allow for people to
Speaker 1: tie multiple aspects of the continuum from cultivation to processing
Speaker 1: to retail and distribution. Um. But aside from that, you know,
Speaker 1: we we were very intentional and the sponsors were as
Speaker 1: well about making sure that there would be as many
Speaker 1: different entry points for people to participate in this industry
Speaker 1: as possible. Um. And you know, the the existing medical
Speaker 1: marijuana organizations within the state, there is a provision within
Speaker 1: the bill that allows them to participate on the adult
Speaker 1: use side if they pay a significant fee UM. And
Speaker 1: that was really important that will go into the incubator
Speaker 1: program making sure that those funds are available from the
Speaker 1: very get go um to have those low and zero
Speaker 1: interest loans, but with really strong guard rails around it
Speaker 1: as well. We just back up for one second, why
Speaker 1: do we still need medical marijuana when marijuana is legalized
Speaker 1: for all? Had I always get a little cloudy about that, right, Um.
Speaker 1: There definitely are you know, different access points for patients
Speaker 1: that are really important to maintain as we move into
Speaker 1: adult use, particularly around costs. UM. So as the as
Speaker 1: the adult use program becomes set up, they're going to
Speaker 1: be different tax levels for patients, and so patients will
Speaker 1: have access a different tax rate. I mean, I I
Speaker 1: would argue, and I would posit that there just shouldn't
Speaker 1: be a tax if it's a medication. Um. But you
Speaker 1: know that's something that we have to move further toward.
Speaker 1: But it means if you have a prescription, you'll pay less,
Speaker 1: That's right. If you have a recommendation from a provider UM.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that the Marijuana Regulation and
Speaker 1: Taxation Act also did UH was make some changes in
Speaker 1: terms of the qualifying conditions and also expanding the fact
Speaker 1: that providers, you know, if they deemed that this that
Speaker 1: cannabis would be helpful for a patient as part of
Speaker 1: a palliative care, that they can do a recommendation. UM.
Speaker 1: It changed the number of hours that are required for
Speaker 1: them to get certified to be able to recommend cannabis.
Speaker 1: So in a lot of ways it made improvements allowed
Speaker 1: for whole flower to be part of the medical program.
Speaker 1: But will there be any difference in the quality? Like
Speaker 1: I think in the Netherlands, where marijuana has been caused
Speaker 1: for decades, they still have a medical marijuana outlet, And
Speaker 1: what distinguishes it is that the quality of production there
Speaker 1: is really medical quality in a very strict way. And
Speaker 1: the other fact is that health insurance will cover it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't have the health insurance piece unfortunately because of
Speaker 1: federal prohibition. But will the quality be the same in
Speaker 1: the medical dispensaries as the others or will there be
Speaker 1: a difference? There are additional testing parameters as far as
Speaker 1: I know, UM, the information about tests will be available
Speaker 1: to consumers across both the medical and the adult use program,
Speaker 1: which is really easy access. But I think there there
Speaker 1: are more stringent testing policies around the medical program still,
Speaker 1: but really a lot of it is around UM access
Speaker 1: and affordability. Okay, so let's now get into the issue
Speaker 1: of our not so beloved Governor Andrew Cuomo. Now, I
Speaker 1: don't know if you even know this, Melissall. I mean
Speaker 1: I first met Andrew Cuomo back in like two thousand
Speaker 1: and three. He was running for governor in the Democratic
Speaker 1: primary against a popular black candidate, Karl McCall, and he
Speaker 1: landed up alienating every buddy. And meanwhile, the next year
Speaker 1: he had to sort of make amends, and he decided
Speaker 1: the way to do it would be to jump in
Speaker 1: and become a kind of supporter of radical reform of
Speaker 1: the draconian Rockefeller drug laws. So he and I met.
Speaker 1: He was an ally. When he became governor, it was
Speaker 1: very mixed, you know, he didn't seem to care about
Speaker 1: the issue that much. When the issue around the racist
Speaker 1: marijuana rest came up, he positioned himself on the right
Speaker 1: side of that issue. I think he saw it as
Speaker 1: politically wise, but on the medical marijuana issue, he was
Speaker 1: a nightmare. I mean, I just I'll tell this last thing.
Speaker 1: I remember what he had decided he finally needed to
Speaker 1: do something, and he called me at home and he said,
Speaker 1: I have this idea. I want to reintroduce his weird
Speaker 1: provision in the old nineteen seventy seven lore, some old
Speaker 1: medical marijuana law, and I want to try to resuscitate it.
Speaker 1: And he said, would you be willing to support it publicly?
Speaker 1: And I said, well, I don't think it's ever gonna work,
Speaker 1: But I mean, if you want me to say yes, fine,
Speaker 1: this is a good start. But do you agree that
Speaker 1: if we can get a medical marijuana build to your desk,
Speaker 1: that you'll sign it. And he said, you'll never get
Speaker 1: it to our desk. And I said, well, I think
Speaker 1: we have a possibility to get through legislature. You said, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: if you get it, I'll sign it. And then, of
Speaker 1: course what happened was we had to bill virtually through
Speaker 1: the legislature, and at that point he did everything in
Speaker 1: his power to turn a really good bill into a
Speaker 1: bad law. So I'm curious about your perspective on the
Speaker 1: governor and this whole issue. Oh wow, there's a lot
Speaker 1: to unpack their. Um, you know, it's interesting hearing the
Speaker 1: trajectory from you know, your historical view and different interaction
Speaker 1: points with him on this issue from when I joined
Speaker 1: d p A, I mean pretty shortly thereafter, Um, you know,
Speaker 1: a press conference about a totally different issue, Governor Cuomo
Speaker 1: was asked about cannabis and about legalization, and at that
Speaker 1: point he went back to like gateway theory type of
Speaker 1: talking points. I mean, just like really absurd. That was like,
Speaker 1: at that point clearly not the case, not you know,
Speaker 1: supported by any of the science or any of the research,
Speaker 1: and yet he was still ling these like old talking points.
Speaker 1: Um when he was kind of caught unawares, you know,
Speaker 1: like that was just his gut feeling. Like so, my
Speaker 1: read of it has been that he, you know, over
Speaker 1: the years is not really been a fan of cannabis whatsoever,
Speaker 1: and um, you know, recognized from the criminal justice space
Speaker 1: the need to talk about the disparities and the impacts
Speaker 1: within different communities, but wasn't really dedicated to coming up
Speaker 1: with a comprehensive solution that would actually address that harm
Speaker 1: and then also move us forward. Into a space where
Speaker 1: we wouldn't continue to see that sort of devastating impact
Speaker 1: taking place after medical marijuana passed. And you know a
Speaker 1: lot of our allies from vocal New York who were
Speaker 1: you know, lower income New Yorkers who have been directly impacted,
Speaker 1: many of whom are navigating life with HIV and hepatitis C,
Speaker 1: who were part of the backbone for the medical marijuana
Speaker 1: program in New York, who still could not afford medication
Speaker 1: for all of these years. You know who you were, Like,
Speaker 1: I went to every single lobby day. I you know,
Speaker 1: even given the fact that they have pretty severe physical ailments,
Speaker 1: like really you know, did everything in their power to
Speaker 1: get this bill passed and then to no avail you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of their own medical needs. And so that
Speaker 1: was really important for us as we were moving forward
Speaker 1: into adult use, was making the improvements in the adjustments
Speaker 1: that were possible to the medical program, but then certainly
Speaker 1: not replicating a lot of those things. So that's where
Speaker 1: I really give a huge amount of credit to the
Speaker 1: bill sponsors who really held firm in the negotiations with
Speaker 1: the governor. I mean, I think also Pivolin New York
Speaker 1: of course, was that until fairly recently, the Republicans to
Speaker 1: some extent control the state Senate, so they were just
Speaker 1: a firm obstacle there, and the fact that um Uh
Speaker 1: Cuomo was politically quite powerful. But I think the thing
Speaker 1: that happened now with Cuomo being so politically weakened was
Speaker 1: he wasn't really in a position this year to stand
Speaker 1: in the way, and he needed a win, and most
Speaker 1: people aren't paying attention to the details they knew he
Speaker 1: had publicly said he was in favor of legalizing a
Speaker 1: few years ago, even though he was blocking a meaningful
Speaker 1: type of league loization law coming through. So I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, really things came together with the Democrats having
Speaker 1: such a super majority in the legislature, and then you
Speaker 1: take a sustained allied effort in the work that you
Speaker 1: and the allies did, it really made the difference this year.
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. Yeah, there were so many
Speaker 1: different factors, definitely flipping a lot of the Senate seats upstate,
Speaker 1: you know, getting new members in who were just reflective
Speaker 1: of an entirely different viewpoint and you know, much more
Speaker 1: supportive of legalization. Even folks like Senator Hinschi, who you
Speaker 1: know herself is a bit more moderate um, but represents
Speaker 1: a community and a district that has a lot of
Speaker 1: farming interests, and so she came out legalization very supportive
Speaker 1: from the standpoint of like, look, this is going to
Speaker 1: help family farmers in my district. What about the opposition,
Speaker 1: I mean, did the cops and prosecutors ever come along
Speaker 1: or did they just stay adamantly opposed all the way?
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting there have been layers to it.
Speaker 1: I think at a certain point they realized that it
Speaker 1: was pretty inevitable that legalization was going to happen, and
Speaker 1: this is going back even a couple of years ago
Speaker 1: because of the campaign that we were running. And so
Speaker 1: then they tried to shape certain aspects of it. They
Speaker 1: tried to carve out ways to criminalize other drugs in
Speaker 1: different ways within the vehicle and traffic law, just like
Speaker 1: really wild provisions that had nothing to do with cannabis whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But we're an attempt to kind of shoehorn in these
Speaker 1: different policies that they've tried to move for years. And
Speaker 1: you know, we we were able to block that too,
Speaker 1: you know, working throughout the coalition and with our allies
Speaker 1: and just really calling it out very clearly, and even
Speaker 1: the governor's own legalization proposals that he has included the
Speaker 1: last couple of state budgets had some of those things,
Speaker 1: you know, woven into them that we identified really clearly
Speaker 1: and just went at like a hammer, just relentlessly calling out,
Speaker 1: you know, the fact that the odor of marijuana under
Speaker 1: the governor's proposal would have still been able to be
Speaker 1: used as a justification for a stop in the search
Speaker 1: when we know, you know, going back to what we
Speaker 1: were talking about right at the beginning of the disproportionate
Speaker 1: criminalization and arrest, since we saw the arrest come down
Speaker 1: a lot in New York City, it really was the
Speaker 1: odor of cannabis that was just used as a blanket
Speaker 1: excuse because it didn't require evidence, it didn't show up
Speaker 1: on a body camera, and so cops are able to
Speaker 1: just allege left and right, like, oh, I, well, I
Speaker 1: smelled cannabis. Therefore I had to search this person, and
Speaker 1: I had to pull his firson over even when there
Speaker 1: was no possible way. And so we've seen some court
Speaker 1: opinions in the last couple of years, you know, just
Speaker 1: saying we're judges have determined this is not credible whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I'm throwing out the entire case um. But the Marijuana
Speaker 1: Regulation and Taxation Act, of what we were really pushing
Speaker 1: for from the campaign perspective was a clear removal of
Speaker 1: odor as a justification for a search and things like that.
Speaker 1: Has any other state done that, by the way, I
Speaker 1: would have to double check on the odor I don't
Speaker 1: think it's been removed as completely in other states as
Speaker 1: we have in New York. The curse of going through
Speaker 1: the legislatures that you have to go through the legislature
Speaker 1: and it isn't just a ballot question where you move
Speaker 1: with public opinion, but you can actually be a lot
Speaker 1: more comprehensive. So we were able to do that. There's
Speaker 1: other provisions there, like, for example, the fact that because
Speaker 1: the age for alcohol is twenty one, the age for
Speaker 1: marijuana being legal is twenty one. But yet yet huge
Speaker 1: numbers of consumers are under the age of twenty one,
Speaker 1: and I think you put provision is in the law
Speaker 1: to make sure that this ridiculous age limit does not
Speaker 1: have draconian effects. Is that right? That's right? Yeah, So
Speaker 1: the penalty for underage possession of cannabis is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a non criminal one. It's a ticket basically for a
Speaker 1: young person, or they could complete community service. UM. So
Speaker 1: we're really clear about not wanting to have any sort
Speaker 1: of criminal penalties that could lead to a record. UM.
Speaker 1: But then also you know that even the NYPD's own
Speaker 1: operations memo following the bill coming out said basically, there's
Speaker 1: because it's a civil penalty and not a criminal one,
Speaker 1: there's no mechanism by which the n y p D
Speaker 1: or other law enforcement across the state can enforce that
Speaker 1: it's not within their purview. And so there you know,
Speaker 1: law enforcement is not able to make it a rest,
Speaker 1: is not able to stop searching question or issue a
Speaker 1: juvenile report. It's all of these things that can have
Speaker 1: such a huge impact on on young people. And then
Speaker 1: you put in consumption rooms so people will be able
Speaker 1: to have places they can go, commercial establishments where they
Speaker 1: can consume marijuana, that's right, They'll be safe and sanctioned
Speaker 1: on site consumption places like lounges where people can go.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you the fact that New York State
Speaker 1: it has to be the first state, isn't it the
Speaker 1: one where people can actually smoke a joint in public?
Speaker 1: Anywhere they can still allowed to smoke a cigarette. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're if you're allowed to smoke tobacco, right, I
Speaker 1: mean there there are a lot of you know, regulations
Speaker 1: around that, with you know, the Clear Air Act compliance that,
Speaker 1: but also like it is pretty monumental. Let's take a
Speaker 1: break here and go to an ad wells. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you I don't smoke marijuana very much, and I
Speaker 1: mostly do edibles, but I literally to celebrate the new law,
Speaker 1: I walked out my door and down the sidewalk and
Speaker 1: I lit up just so that I could experience the freedom.
Speaker 1: You know. I know, the d P A Drug Policy
Speaker 1: Alliance has had to get a little bit of a
Speaker 1: sometimes the growing number of prohibition is directed at people
Speaker 1: who smoke cigarettes are vague. So I mean, now there's
Speaker 1: a risk that with marijuana being legal to smoke anyone
Speaker 1: you can smoke a cigarette. Are we gonna get to
Speaker 1: a point where cigarette is bands so much that people
Speaker 1: won't be able to smoke mariwana anymore? I mean, I
Speaker 1: think this is something that comes up, you know, especially
Speaker 1: from the angle of people who are living in public housing,
Speaker 1: where because of the smoke Free Housing band that went
Speaker 1: through from the federal agency level at HOOD a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago. You know, that was one of the
Speaker 1: concerns that honestly informed the on site consumption license and
Speaker 1: making sure that there would actually be spaces where people
Speaker 1: would be able to be safe and that were sanctioned
Speaker 1: for use um. But also having that that public consumption
Speaker 1: piece anywhere that tobacco consumption is allowed outside of parks
Speaker 1: and outside of driving context, you know, that is still
Speaker 1: not allowed for cannabis, just to be very very clear
Speaker 1: for people. Um. But you know, a lot of that
Speaker 1: was informed by the fact that New York has the
Speaker 1: largest population in public housing, and so we were totally
Speaker 1: willing to move forward into a space of legalization that
Speaker 1: kept people blocked out or established a kind of like
Speaker 1: two tier system that we were trying to address and
Speaker 1: was you know, going to be sort of right for
Speaker 1: ongoing racial disparity. So really trying to anticipate that, and
Speaker 1: we're going to you know, keep an eagle eye on
Speaker 1: that and make sure that as implementation rolls out and
Speaker 1: you know, as we see further operations order shifts from
Speaker 1: law enforcement, that that actually is in keeping with what's
Speaker 1: in the bill. Well, I tell you, I mean, I
Speaker 1: just think it's remarkable all the issues that you thought through.
Speaker 1: So I take it some of the calls that you're
Speaker 1: receiving an email as you're getting these days are from
Speaker 1: people out of state who want to know what they
Speaker 1: can learn from New York and maybe an even outside
Speaker 1: the country. There has been a fair amount of like, hey,
Speaker 1: we're in Wisconsin, like we need help here to um,
Speaker 1: you know, in different states. You know, it's I mean,
Speaker 1: it is interesting like other states to a degree can
Speaker 1: move through ballot initiative. I think, you know, seeing Virginia
Speaker 1: legalize and then also the work of advocates was absolutely
Speaker 1: tremendous to move up the enactment date of when decriminal
Speaker 1: zation would take place. And that is really due to
Speaker 1: the work of black organizers in Virginia, you know, many
Speaker 1: of whom we were working in coordination with as well
Speaker 1: to say, look, if that's great that we legalized, were
Speaker 1: the first state in the South to do so, but
Speaker 1: just waiting until four when we know that ongoing racial
Speaker 1: disparities and enforcement are happening day to day is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: We need to move this up. And so they were
Speaker 1: just successful in that effort. Also, UM, and I think
Speaker 1: you know the South is really going to be like
Speaker 1: sort of the next uh interesting territory for you know
Speaker 1: what this conversation will bring. Yeah, it'll be interesting to
Speaker 1: see because you know, whether or not racial equity provisions
Speaker 1: can you know, prove winnable in ballot initiatives in the South.
Speaker 1: Most of the states don't have the initiative process. I mean,
Speaker 1: Mississippi just legalized medical marri wanted that way. Florida does
Speaker 1: on the votes, so be interesting. What are the interesting
Speaker 1: things this year is that our Senator Chuck Schumer, who
Speaker 1: is now the majority leader, is all over marijuana legalization.
Speaker 1: I mean he's insisted that he's part of the team
Speaker 1: with I think why Senator Widen from Oregon and Corey
Speaker 1: Booker from New Jersey in leading this. He says he
Speaker 1: wants to move forward even if Biden's not there, even
Speaker 1: Republicans um But what are the lessons you think from
Speaker 1: New York for the phase is they proceed? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of it. You know, in many ways,
Speaker 1: New York is the the example that they should be
Speaker 1: looking to, and the Senator Schumer has indicated, you know,
Speaker 1: let's take this win in New York in the way
Speaker 1: that we really did involve comprehensive redress for prior criminalization
Speaker 1: as well as UM, you know, specific things like social
Speaker 1: equity and structuring the business side of things in such
Speaker 1: a way that people can actually truly have a go
Speaker 1: of it at the federal level as well. And I
Speaker 1: think you know, that's been part of the conversation point
Speaker 1: that he's had with Senator Widen. You know, the fact
Speaker 1: that we saw the More Act actually passed through the
Speaker 1: House at the end of last year was absolutely remarkable
Speaker 1: and the MORE actions so people understand that is a
Speaker 1: a marijuana legalization bill that does integrate elements of social
Speaker 1: and economic equity into it. That's right. It has really
Speaker 1: strong restitution components as all, as we're moving marijuana from
Speaker 1: the federal schedule of Controlled substances, allowing me for a
Speaker 1: lot more research. But it does have expungement provisions as
Speaker 1: well as reinvestment provisions that are really important. And the
Speaker 1: fact that we saw that move as the comprehensive bill
Speaker 1: to address UM moving away from cannabis criminalization instead of
Speaker 1: just the banking bill or instead of just like a
Speaker 1: smaller business only component is really important. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: from Drug Policy Alliance perspective, and many of our allies
Speaker 1: as well. You know, we're calling on Congress and especially
Speaker 1: the House and saying, look, let's pass this through in
Speaker 1: this Congress and be able to put the pressure on
Speaker 1: the Senate side. You know, Senator Schumers, the majority leader,
Speaker 1: is saying that he wants to move on this. Uh,
Speaker 1: like you said, Ethan with or without Biden. So let's
Speaker 1: you know, serve up the foundations to be able to
Speaker 1: make that happen. Yeah, I'll take you also a Schumer
Speaker 1: you know, I mean people saying the reason he's doing
Speaker 1: this is because he's worried about getting primaried by AOC
Speaker 1: in A in the Senate primary in a year or so,
Speaker 1: and and so there may be something to that. But
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, in my occasional interactions with him over
Speaker 1: the last few decades, I always saw him as somebody
Speaker 1: who when he came to the broader drug war, he
Speaker 1: was among the worst Democrats, like Biden, like Feinstein, there
Speaker 1: were people who were, you know, like the Republicans when
Speaker 1: it came to just being cruel and dumb on on
Speaker 1: a harsh drug war. But Schumer always was kind of
Speaker 1: more relaxed on the marijuana stuff, and I think he's
Speaker 1: always understood, you know, So finally, um, you know what's
Speaker 1: next for you, um in New York now that marijuana
Speaker 1: is legalized. I mean obviously paying attention to the implementation,
Speaker 1: but what beyond this, Yeah, of course implementation is going
Speaker 1: to be huge and making sure that this all actually
Speaker 1: gets you know, stood up and out the door properly. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, having that sort of checks and balances
Speaker 1: on the on all of the provisions that we put
Speaker 1: in there that we just were talking about making sure
Speaker 1: people actually know about all of this stuff. Um. But
Speaker 1: you know, we were fighting the drug war in all
Speaker 1: of its forms in New York and so you know,
Speaker 1: Drug Policy Alliance earlier this year released the Uprooting the
Speaker 1: Drug War Reports and Analysis, which is really looking at
Speaker 1: all of the different ways in which different system that
Speaker 1: people interact with on a regular basis have been really
Speaker 1: contaminated by the drug war as well. So looking at
Speaker 1: how you know, education has sort of the tentacles of
Speaker 1: the drug war that have now wound its way through
Speaker 1: all of these different aspects of that system. You know,
Speaker 1: employment is another example, public benefits, child welfare, immigration, all
Speaker 1: of these aspects that you know, we we worked on
Speaker 1: being able to attempt in some form or another within
Speaker 1: the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act as part of the
Speaker 1: broader work around marijuana justice. We now need to take
Speaker 1: that into these other systems in New York State as well.
Speaker 1: Well you don't. Yeah, I'm just saying we forgot to
Speaker 1: mention that automatic expungement a marijuana offenses that you got
Speaker 1: into this law, where in other states people had to
Speaker 1: apply for it, it it was more limited, but in New
Speaker 1: York when really is going to result in expulsion for
Speaker 1: what probably hundreds of thousands of people, that's right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it will be on the order of hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of people. It'll extend far further than the twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: Automatic Expungiment Bill, which actually established expungement for the first
Speaker 1: time ever in New York State. That was because of
Speaker 1: our efforts. UM and now under this bill, a much
Speaker 1: larger universe of offenses will qualify for automatic expungement for
Speaker 1: people who have immigration considerations. There's a separate track that
Speaker 1: we were really mindful of, working with allies to make
Speaker 1: sure that that language was crafted to effectively provide relief
Speaker 1: there too. Yeah. Well, you know, just to finish this
Speaker 1: up here. I mean, you know, I'm when I'm thinking back,
Speaker 1: I feel this tremendous sense of of both pride and
Speaker 1: fulfillment um about what's happened now, because you know, with
Speaker 1: Drug Policy Alliance, we had offices in New York and DC.
Speaker 1: You know, we expanded to California and to call it
Speaker 1: to New Mexico, New Jersey, and Colorado. And this year
Speaker 1: New Jersey, in New York and New Mexico, the three
Speaker 1: news of the right all legalized, which means that all
Speaker 1: of the d p A states where we actually had
Speaker 1: people working full time have now legalized marijuana. Now. The
Speaker 1: other place that d p A was very much in
Speaker 1: the news not long ago was for the ballot Initiative
Speaker 1: and Oregon the decriminalized possession of small amounts of a drugs,
Speaker 1: not just marijuana, but you know, heroin, cocaine, f anthonemy, whatever, um,
Speaker 1: and really introduced a kind of Portugal style European approach.
Speaker 1: So is that part of your upcoming agenda New York.
Speaker 1: That's definitely part of the conversation that we're having in
Speaker 1: New York around just how do we shift from a
Speaker 1: criminalization approach to drugs to one that is much more
Speaker 1: rooted in providing people with the care and the resources
Speaker 1: that they need if they're experiencing problematic use, and leaving
Speaker 1: them alone to live their lives with dignity and peace
Speaker 1: if they're not experiencing problematic use. Right, So, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's hope that New York can become one of the
Speaker 1: first states to move all drug DCRIM and all the
Speaker 1: related elements of that through the legislative process, because that
Speaker 1: would be a major breakthrough in national leadership. So Melissa,
Speaker 1: I just want to thank you. I'm so incredibly proud
Speaker 1: of the work that you've accomplished, and you and and
Speaker 1: our colleague Cassandra who is you know, your predecessor in
Speaker 1: the New York effort is now my successors head of
Speaker 1: Drug Policy Alliance. But you've done really fantastic work, and uh,
Speaker 1: just congratulations, congratulations. You've provided at a model both for
Speaker 1: the rest of the country and even the rest of
Speaker 1: the world about how to legalize marijuana in a way
Speaker 1: that really does justice all around and especially to those
Speaker 1: who are most harmed by the drug warp. So thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you, Thanks so much for the conversation today,
Speaker 1: and thank you for founding Drug Policy Alliance for giving
Speaker 1: me a job my great pleasure. Psychoactive is a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. It's hosted by
Speaker 1: me Ethan Naedelman. It's produced by Katcha Kumkova and Ben Kibrick.
Speaker 1: The executive producers are Dylan Golden, Ari Handel, Elizabeth Geesus
Speaker 1: and Darren Aronovski for Protozoa Pictures, Alex Williams and Matt
Speaker 1: Frederick for I Heart Radio and me Ethan Naedelman. Our
Speaker 1: music is by Ari Blusian and a special thanks to
Speaker 1: a viv Brio, Sef Bianca Grimshaw and Robert Beatty. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to share your own stories, comments, or ideas,
Speaker 1: please leave us a message at eight three three seven
Speaker 1: seven nine six. That's one eight three three psycho zero.
Speaker 1: You can also email us as Psychoactive at protozoa dot
Speaker 1: com or find me on Twitter at Ethan Natalman. And
Speaker 1: if you couldn't keep track of all this, find the
Speaker 1: information in the show notes. And on the next episode
Speaker 1: of Psychoactive, we'll be talking to overdose expert Professor Dan Chick.
Speaker 1: Our owne what the hell is going on here? I
Speaker 1: mean it just keeps going up and up. It's a
Speaker 1: devastating problem. Uh, we'll get into nitty gritty, but what's
Speaker 1: your kind of, you know, bird's eye view of what's
Speaker 1: going on in America? It is well, As I told
Speaker 1: The New York Times, this is a historic crisis. If
Speaker 1: you look back almost forty years at mortality data due
Speaker 1: to illicit drugs, we see a log rhythmic upward trend.
Speaker 1: That's a trend that you would have to deliberately try
Speaker 1: to make that outrageous. Subscribe to Cycleactive now see it,
Speaker 1: don't miss it.