[Publication Date: June 13, 2021]

[Word count: 616 words]

[Question:] Should people convicted of low-level marijuana crimes be pardoned?

[Author:] Mason Tvert is a partner at Colorado-based cannabis policy consulting firm VS Strategies, and he co-directed the 2012 initiative campaign to regulate marijuana like alcohol in Colorado.

Colorado lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill last month to increase the amount of marijuana adults can legally possess from one ounce to two ounces. Upon signing it, Gov. Jared Polis said his office would review records of past possession convictions in preparation for pardoning any individuals whose only crime is no longer an illegal activity. It is hard to imagine why anyone could object.

It has been nearly a decade since voters decided to legalize cannabis for adult use in Colorado. At this point, any remaining debate about cannabis policy is focused on regulations and taxes. Most Coloradans now view cannabis in relatively the same way they think of alcohol. Just about everyone agrees possession of small amounts should not be a crime, and many feel it never should have been to begin with.

Cannabis arrests began dropping immediately in Colorado after legalization took effect in December 2012. Previously, the state was branding several thousand adults as criminals every year for simple possession.

For decades, the state has defined possession of up to two ounces as an extremely low-level petty offense punishable by a fine of up to $100 and no possibility of jail time. But as Polis noted, past convictions cast a “long shadow” that can haunt individuals their entire lives. Having even a low-level possession offense on your record can “get in the way of getting loans or leases or licenses or jobs or mortgages or many other things.” The governor also pointed out that past convictions and their collateral consequences disproportionately impact people of color, who have long been arrested for possession at greater rates than whites despite using cannabis at similar levels.

Last October, Polis pardoned more than 2,700 individuals with past convictions for possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. The sky did not fall. Nor will it fall if he extends his pardon to individuals with past convictions of between one and two ounces.

Imagine if nearly 10 years after the repeal of alcohol prohibition, a governor pardoned a few thousand adults whose only crime had been possession of a case of beer or a couple bottles of vodka. Polis is essentially doing just that, only in this case the individuals in question possessed a substance that is objectively less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and to society.

Most Coloradans are ready to move on from cannabis prohibition. Even some who staunchly defended it now recognize the harm and injustices it caused. For years, former Gov. John Hickenlooper and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock fought legalization efforts. Today, they both defend Colorado’s adult-use cannabis law, and Hancock is championing a local program aimed at sealing records of past cannabis convictions.

If we want to put prohibition behind us, we must address the lasting damage it has had and would continue to have without these restorative actions by our elected officials. The governor’s forthcoming pardons should, therefore, be cause for celebration, not alarm.

Still, there will be some who express concern or even feign outrage. Critics will claim these pardons will flood the street with violent criminals, despite them only being narrowly granted for a petty offense that carried no possibility of jail time. They will also argue that people must be held accountable if they broke the law. But shouldn’t the government also be held accountable when it creates and unfairly enforces an unreasonable law that inflicted harm on its citizens?

By pardoning past possession convictions, Polis is attempting to rectify an imbalance of justice and take responsibility for the government’s misguided war on marijuana. His leadership should be applauded. The only way Colorado can truly move on from cannabis prohibition is to ensure it leaves no Coloradans behind.

[Publication Date: June 13, 2021]

[Word count: 464 words]

[Question:] Should people convicted of low-level marijuana crimes be pardoned?

[Author:] Joe Roybal serves as Bureau Chief at the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office. His views do not represent the Sheriff’s Office. Chief Roybal is a candidate for El Paso County Sheriff in 2022.

It is important to look at all angles when it comes to decisions made by leaders, especially elected officials, that impact the community. Recently, Governor Polis made a decision to extend pardons to those who have been convicted of “low level” marijuana crimes. This decision comes on the heels of a bill he signed allowing people to legally possess up to 2 ounces of cannabis.

While on the surface it would seem appropriate to allow for such a pardon, I disagree. “Appropriate” is defined as suitable or proper based on the circumstances — that is, the circumstances at the time of the action, not after the fact.

This question should be addressed from the standpoint of principle. A principle of the judicial system is to ensure consequences based on enforcement of the laws after due process. To be specific, it is a principle of the judicial system for a party to face the penalties when a law is broken. At the time the law was violated, the involved party made a conscious decision to violate the law knowing there would be consequences for their actions.

Even with a subsequent change in the law, there is no reason to believe our citizens expect someone not to be held accountable for their decisions based on the laws in place at the time.

Additionally, the punishment or consequences for a “low level” offense are not significant. If the law allows for the expungement of a record (after the conviction and appropriate action is taken) this is sufficient to address the concerns of those who believe the pardons should be allowed, in order to prevent the conviction from permanently affecting one’s life.

It is also important to note that part of the reasoning for the pardons is a conviction’s impact on getting loans or mortgages. However, I am not aware of a criminal background check being conducted before the purchase of a home or a personal loan. This seems to be a manufactured reason to pardon someone who willfully broke an existing law, and who had no reason to believe the same action later would be legal.

It would be appropriate for our leadership to focus on the current difficulties facing our state and our communities. Time spent on reviewing “low level” cases for pardon is better spent on discussing solutions to concerns facing our community such as mental health care and aid for our veterans. It would seem prudent for our governor to focus on the present and allow the

consequences of the past to be faced by those who willingly ignored the laws in place at the time. They were granted the judicial process our country is founded on and should be held to the standard which existed when they made their decision to violate the law.