Speaker 1: You're listening to Comedy Central. Hey, it's Roy Wood Jr.
Speaker 1: Hosted the Daily Show podcast Beyond the Scenes. It's the
Speaker 1: podcast that explores topics that were originally covered on the
Speaker 1: show but deserve a little more time. This week, we're
Speaker 1: taking a look back at the conversation about cannabis legislation
Speaker 1: with Bullpack founder Justin Streckel, an author of Bending the
Speaker 1: Ark My Journey from Prison to Politics, Keta Jay Haynes
Speaker 1: enjoy Hey, Welcome to Beyond the Scenes, the Daily Show
Speaker 1: podcast that goes a little deeper into the segments and
Speaker 1: topics that originally aired on the show. Like if The
Speaker 1: Daily Show is the car, then this podcast is the
Speaker 1: extra bills and whistles that make you feel fancy, leather
Speaker 1: interior that scream with the GPS that pops up, heated
Speaker 1: seats and cool seats so you but can be toasty
Speaker 1: or cold. Today we're discussing the top of that Trevor
Speaker 1: covered on back in. That's right, we're talking about weed.
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 roll 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 going to be a better place if we have
Speaker 1: more marijuana. And you can just go down to the
Speaker 1: corner drosery store and 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'm also joined
Speaker 1: by the author of Bending the Ark, My journey for
Speaker 1: prison to Politics, Keta 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 breakdown for me and the
Speaker 1: 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 would be like, well
Speaker 1: not see you when I'm doing it, and you ain't
Speaker 1: sure if you're still gonna get in trouble and that
Speaker 1: so explain to us the state legality versus the federal
Speaker 1: criminality aspect of cannabis. Well, this, that's a great question,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately a lot of people, even who work in Congress,
Speaker 1: do not understand the answer to that question. Basically, let's
Speaker 1: start the showing a happy note justin how about that
Speaker 1: Congress is absurd and they don't know what they're doing here. Um,
Speaker 1: you know this, this is one of those things where America,
Speaker 1: you know, the things we choose to care about and
Speaker 1: how we enforce it. Marijuana is criminalized at the federal
Speaker 1: level for all fifty states and territories for all citizens
Speaker 1: under federal law, but nineteen states, which include forty cent
Speaker 1: of Americans, have chosen to legalize it, and for all
Speaker 1: intents and purposes, the federal government isn't taking action against them.
Speaker 1: But for the cannabis businesses that are around the country,
Speaker 1: they're not allowed to take basic federal tax deductions. UH.
Speaker 1: For the for the banking system, these these cannabis businesses
Speaker 1: are in mostly not getting banked because banks are afraid
Speaker 1: of the sec um and the laundry list of other states,
Speaker 1: particularly in the South, UH, that are using the ongoing
Speaker 1: federal prohibition to justify continue arresting people with state and
Speaker 1: local police. Is that why you think some states are
Speaker 1: a inst the legalization of cannabis Because there is a
Speaker 1: degree of profitability within the prison system that is one
Speaker 1: of the common drivers. I think that, sadly, apathy is
Speaker 1: the easiest out for politicians right now. If the status
Speaker 1: quos continuation doesn't threaten their continued election, then they're just
Speaker 1: gonna stick with the status quo. And in uh, in
Speaker 1: all these states, not a single state arrests Americans in
Speaker 1: a in a racially even way. Thank the a c
Speaker 1: l You put out a really terrifying but not surprising
Speaker 1: report that showed black Americans are nearly four times as
Speaker 1: likely to get arrested than white Americans despite similar consumption rights.
Speaker 1: Now with your lobbying work, you know, has it always
Speaker 1: been about your relationship with bowl or does your advocacy
Speaker 1: did it start even before that time? Oh? Yeah, this
Speaker 1: this started in I was a legislative aid in the
Speaker 1: Virginia State Senate and I helped write the first decriminalization
Speaker 1: bill for my boss, along with the double a CP,
Speaker 1: the A c l U and normal And then a
Speaker 1: year later Normal recruited me to be their federal lobbyist.
Speaker 1: Uh and I joined the organization in October when I
Speaker 1: thought my job was gonna be very different than than
Speaker 1: what was unveiled to me. The second week of November,
Speaker 1: I thought my job at the Daily Show was going
Speaker 1: to be very 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 in a little bit,
Speaker 1: but I first want to get your opinion, you know,
Speaker 1: before we even talk about the criminalization of cannabis. And
Speaker 1: while I was criminalized in the first place, let's talk
Speaker 1: about the portrayal of smoking. Like even at the top
Speaker 1: of the show, like I've had to be reminded by
Speaker 1: my cannabis smoking friends. They even the word weed itself
Speaker 1: was a propaganda ish word. Like, talk to us a
Speaker 1: little 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 would marijuana, but with all of you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, the drugs that they're out there, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, we we know, you know when we talk
Speaker 1: about you know, crack and powder, cocaine, Um, you know,
Speaker 1: the difference with that, you know, the way that black
Speaker 1: people are treated in the way that white people are treated.
Speaker 1: But again it is white people that is using it
Speaker 1: at a rate that higher than black people. And so
Speaker 1: that's the thing is that you know when we talk
Speaker 1: about it, because you know, we hear all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, it's cannabis, you know, and everybody is you know,
Speaker 1: into the cannabis business and stuff like that. But when
Speaker 1: we were prosecuting black people for it, it was exactly
Speaker 1: what you said. It was weed, right, um, you know,
Speaker 1: because that was right exactly, you know, and it was
Speaker 1: the gateway drug and it led to you know more,
Speaker 1: you know, people using different drugs and being involved in
Speaker 1: 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 the state of you know,
Speaker 1: some when you look at Chicago, right, recreational uses there,
Speaker 1: but you can still be prosecuted for if you're in
Speaker 1: public housing. What 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, like,
Speaker 1: if weed is this holistic thing that helps and year
Speaker 1: man and everything cool man, why was it criminalized to
Speaker 1: 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, think it
Speaker 1: it all stems back to making sure that black people
Speaker 1: are gonna have convictions on their record. It's all about
Speaker 1: 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: going to criminalize this. It's it's really and truly when
Speaker 1: you start looking at it and looking at the intersectionality
Speaker 1: of all these issues, it is literally about stripping the
Speaker 1: power away from the black community. And if if I
Speaker 1: can add to that. In in the early nineteen thirties,
Speaker 1: Harry Anslinger, who was an out of work prohibitionist under
Speaker 1: alcohol prohibition, was trying to find himself a new job,
Speaker 1: and he was running around the country building up support
Speaker 1: for marijuana prohibition, and he would say things like, you know,
Speaker 1: reform makes the negroes think they're as good as the
Speaker 1: white man, or reform makes negroes look at a white
Speaker 1: woman twice. And then he became the first director of
Speaker 1: the Federal Beer of Narcotics. That was it. That was
Speaker 1: on his I'm telling you, man, I've done the research,
Speaker 1: and when he smoked his weed, they look at white
Speaker 1: women and go, you're hired. What about even calling it marijuana?
Speaker 1: I've heard that even that that that connotation in and
Speaker 1: of itself had racist roots. Marijuana is simply the Spanish
Speaker 1: word for cannabis um and the when I think about it,
Speaker 1: you know, my my job isn't here to to tell
Speaker 1: you what to call it. My job is to change
Speaker 1: the law. And the Controlled Substances Act says marijuana and
Speaker 1: it's actually spelled with an h uh. You know it
Speaker 1: was all the inflection that was put on it when
Speaker 1: during this racist campaign to to stir up animosity against Mexican,
Speaker 1: particularly Mexicans and Black Americans. UM So, I don't care
Speaker 1: if you call it marijuana, weed, cannabis, pot, whatever. I
Speaker 1: just want to call it legal. Where do you all
Speaker 1: think the role of cannabis in media and entertainment? Uh
Speaker 1: fits in terms of the portrayal of it or fueling
Speaker 1: the war? Like you know, Dr Dre had an album
Speaker 1: called The Chronic and we all know when Snoop and
Speaker 1: the whole West Coast rap scene Cypress Hill. If we're
Speaker 1: even gonna go back even further than Death Row Records,
Speaker 1: where it was a lot of we smoke weed. This
Speaker 1: is what we do. It's fun, We're having a good time.
Speaker 1: How much did that play into some of the negative stereotypes?
Speaker 1: And even with the films, you know, if we talk
Speaker 1: 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 weed 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 to what that did? You know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, Like in the crack epidemic, like it
Speaker 1: portrayed black people they were crack heads, um, you know,
Speaker 1: and all of these things, right, and you know when
Speaker 1: it 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 the 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 wilfare 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 Ketas comments, I will say, you know, just
Speaker 1: culturally the acknowledgement of marijuana used, be it through be
Speaker 1: through rap, hip hop, or going back to the Cheech
Speaker 1: and Chong movies, and then later the just the explosion
Speaker 1: of the Internet and people being able to communicate and
Speaker 1: share memes and little clip videos really helped give the
Speaker 1: public the opportunity to review this substance through a lens
Speaker 1: that wasn't just the government funded propaganda that was you know,
Speaker 1: like Reefer Madness, which now we just use as a
Speaker 1: colloquialism about how absurd it was, but that was a government,
Speaker 1: taxpayer funded movie to to scare white people to not
Speaker 1: use marijuana and and to stoke racial division. These high
Speaker 1: school boys and girls are having a hop at the
Speaker 1: local soda fountain innocently, they dance innocent of a new
Speaker 1: and deadly menace lurking behind closed doors, marijuana, the burning
Speaker 1: weed with its roots in hell. That was the only
Speaker 1: lens that people had largely from you know, nineteen thirty,
Speaker 1: the beginning of criminalization through Ronald Reagan, until we really
Speaker 1: started getting to be able to access different aspects of
Speaker 1: the culture and I think even though some of that
Speaker 1: propaganda has you know, subsided, I still think the ideology
Speaker 1: is still there, you know, to what Kita said. You know,
Speaker 1: if you want to criminalize it, attach black and brown
Speaker 1: to it. You know, like the state of Texas is
Speaker 1: a great example where I think the population of black people,
Speaker 1: but we almost like, of all the cannabis possession arrests,
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, you only find you're only finding us,
Speaker 1: We're the only ones you're catching with the marijuana officer. Nobody,
Speaker 1: nobody else as marijuana. And so you know, that creates
Speaker 1: opportunities for people to separate, you know, families based on
Speaker 1: drug charges. And you know, the thing that's also very
Speaker 1: very messy when you talk about drug charges is that,
Speaker 1: you know, you start talking about assets seizures and forfeitures,
Speaker 1: and then you're also able to charge anybody else. This
Speaker 1: is you know, what I really love about drug laws
Speaker 1: is that it's group possession if they want it to be.
Speaker 1: If I'm with you and you got the drugs, somehow
Speaker 1: we got the drugs and I'm like, no, they got
Speaker 1: the drugs. And I think that's also how they're able
Speaker 1: to catch up, you know, family members and loved ones,
Speaker 1: and you know that's just a whole another layer to it,
Speaker 1: which Pete, I would love to talk to you a
Speaker 1: little bit more about, you know, after the break, about
Speaker 1: your journey and how women in prison, you know, and
Speaker 1: girlfriends and wives of drug offenders are also caught up
Speaker 1: in this dragnet over a drug that should have been
Speaker 1: legal the whole time. In the first place, we'll do
Speaker 1: that after the break. This is beyond the scenes now, Kita,
Speaker 1: I want to dive more into the story that inspired
Speaker 1: your book, because you know, we spoke with Justin you know, earlier,
Speaker 1: just about his work on the activism and the lobby
Speaker 1: and side of things to get these laws changed to
Speaker 1: keep things from happening that happened to people like yourself. Now,
Speaker 1: if you could for the people who don't know and
Speaker 1: what inspired your book? How did you end up serving
Speaker 1: time for a cannabis charge? So I end up serving
Speaker 1: almost four years in federal prison UM for and the
Speaker 1: charge was actually aiding and abetting a conspiracy to distribute
Speaker 1: one hundred to four hundred kilograms of marijuana. Actually had
Speaker 1: UM seven charges and part of those charges where the
Speaker 1: conspiracy charges, which is what you alluded to earlier. UM,
Speaker 1: and it basically says that if one person or a
Speaker 1: couple of people had marijuana and if you associated with him,
Speaker 1: then you can be charged with that, And conspiracy can
Speaker 1: be attached to pretty much any of the you know,
Speaker 1: offenses in the federal system. So myself, along with twenty
Speaker 1: eight other people were indicted in the Middle District of
Speaker 1: Tennessee on various different marijuana charges. UM. Everyone chose to
Speaker 1: put guilty except for me. I chose to go to trial,
Speaker 1: chose to hold the government to its burden, and was
Speaker 1: equitted of those charges and was found guilty of aiding
Speaker 1: and embedding. But what a lot of people don't understand
Speaker 1: is that aiding and embedding still ties back to the
Speaker 1: underlining offense, which was a conspiracy offense. And the jury
Speaker 1: um was asked to determine the amount of marijuana that
Speaker 1: I was responsible for, and they checked the entire amount
Speaker 1: of the conspiracy. And so in the federal system, the
Speaker 1: amount of time that you get is based upon the
Speaker 1: amount of marijuana that you have, and so the amount
Speaker 1: that they checked automatically carried a five year mandatory minimum.
Speaker 1: So regardless, you know, me being someone who had never
Speaker 1: had any exposure with the criminal legal system. I was
Speaker 1: already looking at five years in federal prison regardless, just
Speaker 1: because of the amount of marijuana that they checked. And
Speaker 1: you never seen saw touch the weed. Ain't never nothing, no, No.
Speaker 1: The guy that I was dating, UM, he told me
Speaker 1: that him and his family that they had some businesses
Speaker 1: in Memphis, which is about three hours here in Nashville,
Speaker 1: and UM that they had a Beeper's plush shop and
Speaker 1: that UM no one was going to be at the
Speaker 1: store when UM FedEx was going to be delivering UM
Speaker 1: the pages and cellphones and asked if I would sign
Speaker 1: my name and his cousins would come and pick it up.
Speaker 1: So all I ever did was sign my name on packages,
Speaker 1: never opened up the packages, never even saw any marijuana
Speaker 1: when they brought it into court for the jury to see.
Speaker 1: It was the first time that I saw anything that
Speaker 1: was ever alleged to have been in those packages. And
Speaker 1: that alone is enough for a conspiracy charge. And there
Speaker 1: are people like that that's still sit in prison to
Speaker 1: this day on similar circumstances. Yes, that was enough. Um.
Speaker 1: There was also this this part of the whole trial,
Speaker 1: because I was convicted on the fact that I should
Speaker 1: have known that there was a marijuana in the back
Speaker 1: in those boxes, not that I actually knew, but that
Speaker 1: I should have known. How Okay, that's you know, that's
Speaker 1: that's another part of the whole criminal legal process. And
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: cocaine and we wouldn't been talking today if we're really
Speaker 1: gonna be honest about it, right right. You mentioned also
Speaker 1: in the book that you studied criminal justice in college,
Speaker 1: and you know, and that you had a heavy interest
Speaker 1: in law, and like you even worked as a correctional
Speaker 1: officer at a point. How did your interest in the
Speaker 1: legal system help and hurt you in your case? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So how it hurts 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 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, the federal system is an animal all
Speaker 1: within itself, and most people don't really know people who
Speaker 1: have had contact with the federal system because it's it's
Speaker 1: not the same misstate system. Like you don't see people
Speaker 1: that's getting probation and coming home and stuff. In the
Speaker 1: federal system, people are going away for for a year
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 in 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 going 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 intel legends should have
Speaker 1: known that I was dealing with something highly illegal, and
Speaker 1: that I was lucky to have been acquitted of all
Speaker 1: of the other charges. And so, you know, she talked
Speaker 1: to me in a manner as if you know, I
Speaker 1: was this black person and I had these advantages that
Speaker 1: black people normally don't have, and how dare I end
Speaker 1: up in front of her courtroom because you know, talk
Speaker 1: about this in a book. There was a white female
Speaker 1: who was addicted to drugs. She robbed a bank and
Speaker 1: she got less time than I did. Now, you definitely
Speaker 1: know when you robbing a bank. Oh absolutely, that one
Speaker 1: that when you were extremely aware of Now justin I
Speaker 1: know that you would also in your past when you
Speaker 1: were younger, got arrested for smoking cannabis. Walked me through
Speaker 1: your journey through the federal correction system. It wasn't a
Speaker 1: federal charge, it was it was a local charge. Uh,
Speaker 1: how I did not. Um, I got arrested with my
Speaker 1: best friend. We were out camping and they got us
Speaker 1: with underage alcohol and we watched sitting handcuff for forty
Speaker 1: five minutes as they searched the campsite for cannabis. We
Speaker 1: saw these rangers on their hands and knees with flashlights
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night searching for for pot.
Speaker 1: And when we went to the judge, uh, same charge.
Speaker 1: You know, they didn't find any any marijuana. We had
Speaker 1: thrown it into the fire. Um I got forty hours
Speaker 1: of community service and court costs and my friend got
Speaker 1: a five fine, a year of probation, a year of
Speaker 1: drug testing that he had to pay for, He had
Speaker 1: to go to alcoholic and drug addicts classes that he
Speaker 1: had to pay for. And I'm sure I don't need
Speaker 1: to tell you the difference between myself and my friend. Um,
Speaker 1: so that was that was what opened my eyes first
Speaker 1: hand in in a front row seat to the racial
Speaker 1: disparity that that our criminal legal system inflicts on people
Speaker 1: who don't look like me. Okay, So then to that
Speaker 1: disparity point, then Keita, talk a little bit about like
Speaker 1: the lawyer side of it, you know, because sometimes you're
Speaker 1: only as lucky as you are your lawyer is competent. Uh,
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about the role that lawyers sometimes
Speaker 1: play in the mystery of this because everyone isn't like yourself,
Speaker 1: where they already had an interest in criminal justice, they
Speaker 1: already had the ability and the the the mental capacity
Speaker 1: to process and understand the law in the way that
Speaker 1: they could educate themselves while they're incarcerated, to work on
Speaker 1: their retrial, to to work on their appeal. So talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about the report of a lawyer and
Speaker 1: did and the role that a lawyer played. Did a
Speaker 1: lawyer play a role? And everything turning out? I don't
Speaker 1: want to say, better for you, but not being as
Speaker 1: bad as it could have been. Right, it definitely was
Speaker 1: not as bad as it could have been. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I was blessed 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: felt as if their lawyers didn't do anything for them,
Speaker 1: that their law yours just you know, had them to
Speaker 1: take a plea and you know, and they were pleading
Speaker 1: to ten, fifteen, twenty years, right, Um, and just felt
Speaker 1: as if their lawyers didn't care, their lawyers did listen
Speaker 1: to them. And so I had a completely different experience
Speaker 1: with my lawyer, which you know, was one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why I decided that I wanted to become a
Speaker 1: public defender, because I wanted to be able to provide
Speaker 1: the same level of representation that he provided me being
Speaker 1: a lawyer that we paid. I wanted to provide that
Speaker 1: same level of representation to people who cannot afford it
Speaker 1: because I had heard the stories from the women in prison.
Speaker 1: And so when I was working as a public defender
Speaker 1: here in Nashville, Um, you know, I took the I
Speaker 1: took the government to task, right, like when it came
Speaker 1: to that UM. I specifically remember one of the d
Speaker 1: as she offered. I had two clients and they both
Speaker 1: had the same drugs, um everything. And she offered my
Speaker 1: white client drug treatment and offered my block client to
Speaker 1: just plead guilty to this charge and to pay a
Speaker 1: fine and this stuff and up. And I said, well,
Speaker 1: wait a minute. I was just like, you offered Mr
Speaker 1: such and such, you know, to go the drug treatment
Speaker 1: and to have the opportunity to have this removed from
Speaker 1: their 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 it. 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 opiois 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: we're using drugs and we wanted to criminalize it. And
Speaker 1: and it is a very same thing with every single right.
Speaker 1: It's the very same thing with marijuana, is that. And
Speaker 1: and it just just really really boils down to the
Speaker 1: simple fact that in this system, we do not see
Speaker 1: the humanity and the dignity in the black and brown
Speaker 1: bodies that are coming in this system in the same
Speaker 1: manner that we see the dignity and the redemption in
Speaker 1: 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: figured out of what you got to give it up
Speaker 1: to the govern Boy, they's some slick ones. They know
Speaker 1: how to make something legal and then make you pay
Speaker 1: 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 and address
Speaker 1: federal 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 I am. I am truly of
Speaker 1: the belief that if if they held a closed door
Speaker 1: session just up or down do we continue marijuana prohibition,
Speaker 1: that that at least sixty senators in the Senate would
Speaker 1: say no. But given the the that's not how the
Speaker 1: Senate works. And given Mitch McConnell's absolute seeming glee at
Speaker 1: the prospect of young, poor people getting arrested for marijuana. Uh,
Speaker 1: and his iron gripped ruling of his Republican caucus. It's
Speaker 1: very difficult to see how we get to sixty votes
Speaker 1: given the legislative filibuster. Okay, So then with that being said,
Speaker 1: you decide to found the bullpack, you leave, you leave normal,
Speaker 1: and then you create a whole new pack and you go,
Speaker 1: all right, we got to get this straight at the
Speaker 1: federal level. What inspired that change? And how does the bullpeck?
Speaker 1: How do you fight cannabis at the federal level. So
Speaker 1: one of the things that I've thought about a whole
Speaker 1: lot in the last few years when I was still
Speaker 1: at Normal. Corey Gardner was running for re election and
Speaker 1: he was a big champion of the Safe Banking Act,
Speaker 1: so essentially to legalize the profits of the sale of
Speaker 1: licensed marijuana companies, but not the people who consume it.
Speaker 1: And you know, and I'm in favor of the Safe
Speaker 1: Banking Act as an incremental measure. But uh, he he
Speaker 1: was defeated in in his his effort to be re
Speaker 1: elected by hicken Looper. UH. Senator use and the Republican
Speaker 1: narrative in the Senate Caucus is you know, marijuana didn't
Speaker 1: save Corey, and I think that's entirely disingenuous argument. I
Speaker 1: think that if Jesus Christ himself came second, came to
Speaker 1: 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 defeat,
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 all,
Speaker 1: like focus on Tennessee so that we can get rid
Speaker 1: of Marshall Blackburn and that will tremendously. You and I
Speaker 1: should talk after this offline about about what's going on
Speaker 1: in Tennessee. I'd love to if there is a pathway
Speaker 1: to do it and I can help absolutely keep it.
Speaker 1: Then how what are some ways you know you've spoken
Speaker 1: to last break about it's a public defender, being an
Speaker 1: advocate for your clients who may not necessarily know all
Speaker 1: of the different avenues that are available to them, because
Speaker 1: 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. It's 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
Speaker 1: were talking about any of this cannabis legislation right and
Speaker 1: what should be done. And so I work at two
Speaker 1: different organizations like locally and on the national level and UM.
Speaker 1: Locally is an organization called Free Hearts and UM it
Speaker 1: is an organization that is run by directly impact to women.
Speaker 1: So 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 variosif in local legislation and
Speaker 1: then on the National Council UM, the National Council for
Speaker 1: Incarcerating Formal Incarcerated Girls and Women. That is one of
Speaker 1: the main things that we do is that we make
Speaker 1: sure that directly impacted women in 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 experienceded in the 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 legalized 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 Drunk Policy Alliance and includes the National
Speaker 1: Council for Formally 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 Act. And you
Speaker 1: know it also include the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Speaker 1: Human Rights and the a c l U, among others,
Speaker 1: and 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 catch all under social equity,
Speaker 1: and it needs to be both the criminal legal reform.
Speaker 1: So how is it that we're going to end the
Speaker 1: criminalization and make sure that we don't allow those who
Speaker 1: have been harmed be it through maintaining those criminal records. Uh,
Speaker 1: Marijuana charges are one of the leading causes of deportation
Speaker 1: in this country. Um to you know to um two
Speaker 1: public benefits to everything as well as the second bucket
Speaker 1: is licensing for those who have been impacted or benefiting
Speaker 1: those who live in communities that have seen the criminalization
Speaker 1: of marijuana be used as that entry point by law enforcement,
Speaker 1: who is essentially treating a community like an occupied zone.
Speaker 1: And then the third part is is actually like and
Speaker 1: this is what I fear doesn't get discussed enough, which
Speaker 1: is actual just direct economic reparations for those who have
Speaker 1: had their lives impacted or been incarcerated as a result
Speaker 1: of a marijuana charge. Evanston, Illinois is the first to
Speaker 1: my knowledge that that implemented a local ordinance. And I
Speaker 1: really hope and I'm inspired that we see that percolating
Speaker 1: more around the country. What Evanston did and and and
Speaker 1: I may be a little bit off in my characterization
Speaker 1: of it, but they made sure that they were going
Speaker 1: to set up upside a portion of the cannabis revenue
Speaker 1: that was generated by taxes in the local sales UH
Speaker 1: to be specifically earmarked to go to those who have
Speaker 1: been arrested, um in evans who live in Evanston, to
Speaker 1: help them by by homes or to pay off their mortgages,
Speaker 1: or to be rental assistance um so direct support for
Speaker 1: the impacted individuals in a perpetual, forward thinking, meaningful way.
Speaker 1: You know, being a person that is impactsed, you know
Speaker 1: by you know this whole cannabis mayor wanna um, I
Speaker 1: still have a conviction on my record today. So for
Speaker 1: all of the people that are able to profit off
Speaker 1: of me or one of those that are able to
Speaker 1: smoke get freely, like you know, there's this whole thing.
Speaker 1: You know, it really bothers me, right, you know, to
Speaker 1: 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 why 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 often we see city
Speaker 1: councils or state legislatures or even federal representatives trying to
Speaker 1: equate a new petition based process. Um as if that's
Speaker 1: going to make justice raindown for like manna from heaven,
Speaker 1: it's just an as for permission, You're you're still asking
Speaker 1: for permission. And too often people won't even know about
Speaker 1: that new program, or if they do know about it,
Speaker 1: they're being expected to navigate a very complicated judicial bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: And that's why, you know, we're really pleased to see
Speaker 1: in the new bill by by Senate Leader Schumer UH
Speaker 1: that it would be an automatic process and that those
Speaker 1: who had convictions would be required to have those uh
Speaker 1: released and be notified. Being notified is an important thing too.
Speaker 1: Just because you had an expungement, if you don't know it,
Speaker 1: you're still checking that box. Um. So those things need
Speaker 1: to work in harmony in order to make sure that
Speaker 1: people can no longer be harlemed going forward. In one
Speaker 1: final thing, not only that it be automatic, but that
Speaker 1: it be retroactive, because if it if it goes into
Speaker 1: effect today, ay, and if it passes and it goes
Speaker 1: into effect, you know whenever if it's not retroactive, I
Speaker 1: don't receive the benefit from him, right, you know, because
Speaker 1: we're talking about you know, my conviction that is from
Speaker 1: you know, two thousand and two. Right, So not only
Speaker 1: that it be automatic, but also that would be made retroactive. Well,
Speaker 1: I feel like, you know, I asked you all for solutions,
Speaker 1: and you present it nine more problems that also needs
Speaker 1: solutions to this issue. And I'm gonna ask you about
Speaker 1: a tenth one. And I hate to ask it, but
Speaker 1: I got to because we we had We got to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this. This is like a
Speaker 1: nine front war that you all are waging, the two
Speaker 1: of you. What role do the companies that have already
Speaker 1: benefited from the legalization in marijuana, who are now lobbying
Speaker 1: to keep it illegal federally so that it doesn't cut
Speaker 1: into the profits play in keeping marijuana sales licenses out
Speaker 1: of the hands of so many people who deserve them.
Speaker 1: That is a billion dollar question currently, It's going to
Speaker 1: be a forty five billion dollar question in a couple
Speaker 1: of years. Uh, it's projected to by UM and it's
Speaker 1: going to be a multi trillion conversation in in just decades. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: marijuana reform is not going to escape the same kind
Speaker 1: of legislative capture that we see in every other aspect
Speaker 1: of American style capitalism. And you know, I I know
Speaker 1: some of the lobbyists from the marijuana industry who are
Speaker 1: you know, just beating the drum about how, no, we
Speaker 1: need to be incremental in this, we need to be
Speaker 1: incremental in this. We we can't go too far, too fast,
Speaker 1: and they're they're glossing it up to make it seem
Speaker 1: like they're trying to get things done. But for every
Speaker 1: day that goes by that we don't see comprehensive reform.
Speaker 1: We see the entrenchment of the state siloed marketplaces because,
Speaker 1: unlike any other consumer good, it is illegal to have
Speaker 1: interstate commerce on marijuana because of federal prohibition. And in
Speaker 1: some states like Pennsylvania or Florida, among others, we see
Speaker 1: a hyper limited number of licenses that are allowed, and
Speaker 1: you know, fifty thou dollar nonrefundable application fee in West Virginia,
Speaker 1: for example, just for the right to be considered for
Speaker 1: a license, not to get it, not not not a
Speaker 1: pre approval, just to be considered um And it really
Speaker 1: is just doubling down on the class war that that
Speaker 1: is inflicted or just infected in so much of of
Speaker 1: American society. So we talked about the role that, you know,
Speaker 1: the media is played in influencing public perception of cannabis.
Speaker 1: What 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 that,
Speaker 1: and say, you know, like this is happening to everyday
Speaker 1: average people, right like myself, some who's never been involved
Speaker 1: in the criminal legal system, and if this can happen
Speaker 1: to me, this can also happen to you. And so
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, it all comes down to
Speaker 1: seeing the humanity in people, right, because you know, when
Speaker 1: we look at you know, Dr Dre 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 cannabis?
Speaker 1: And he's a Republican right, um, you know. And then
Speaker 1: when you start to break those down, then it's just like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, this really could be me and then
Speaker 1: you start to see the humanity And it's unfortunate that
Speaker 1: we have to do that for you to for people
Speaker 1: to even see the humanity. Is that you know, I'm
Speaker 1: a human being. Why can't you just see the humanity
Speaker 1: in me just as a person. But we know that
Speaker 1: that doesn't work, and so that is a lot of
Speaker 1: the things that we have been doing is that you know,
Speaker 1: we when we are advocating for legislation, we are bringing
Speaker 1: in people that look like them and say, hey, you
Speaker 1: know what, I'm harmed a buy this too. And then
Speaker 1: that's when they take a step back and look at
Speaker 1: this and the it's like, oh, you know what, maybe
Speaker 1: we do need to start changing some things, right. And
Speaker 1: that's why I say, you know, this change is going
Speaker 1: to come about from the ground right. That's a that's
Speaker 1: a whole movement thing, that's a whole organizing thing, right,
Speaker 1: And so it's gonna come about from the ground up,
Speaker 1: like you know, it's not going to come from the
Speaker 1: top down, like we've seen that, right. And if we're
Speaker 1: waiting for anything to happen from the top down, it
Speaker 1: is not going to happen. Change is going to come
Speaker 1: about by the movement, like we look at like movements
Speaker 1: that have taken place all across this country. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm saying over the past, you know, fifty sixty years,
Speaker 1: that changes come from the ground right, like the organizing
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying, from from everybody all across
Speaker 1: the country coming together. That is what it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: That that is what it is going to fuel the change.
Speaker 1: And and we're starting to see this, you know, where
Speaker 1: people from different backgrounds, people you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: you know, from different classes, you know, people are coming
Speaker 1: together around these issues and saying, you know what, we
Speaker 1: want change, and then they are pushing their representatives, their legislators, legislators, um,
Speaker 1: you know, for this particular change. And so I just believe,
Speaker 1: you know, particularly someone who is part of this movement,
Speaker 1: that 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 or 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 return
Speaker 1: on investment in the locality, just in creating and supporting
Speaker 1: small businesses. And then when they looked at the numbers
Speaker 1: from a different lens, for every one dollar of the
Speaker 1: revenue invested yielded when you include educational support, re entry services,
Speaker 1: job training, placement, exponent assistance, etcetera, it yielded four hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty six percent return on investment for every one
Speaker 1: dollar spent um. So you know, right now, super and over,
Speaker 1: women's trying to make sure everybody's seeing this report, seeing
Speaker 1: the data, and and hopefully Oakland can be a good
Speaker 1: example for localities around the country on how to do
Speaker 1: a better job of prioritizing local ownership and diversely reflective
Speaker 1: ownership and communities everywhere. Well, justin Strickle from the Bullpeck,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. And key to the book is
Speaker 1: bending the Arc my journey from prison to politics. I
Speaker 1: cannot thank you all enough for going beyond the scenes
Speaker 1: with me. Thank you so very much. Thank you. Listen
Speaker 1: to The Daily Show Beyond the Scenes on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Watch The Daily Show weeknights at eleven tenth Central on
Speaker 1: Comedy Central in stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus.
Speaker 1: This has been a Comedy Central podcast.