Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
JOEL WEINER | COLUMN
Legalizing marijuana should include
retroactively clearing convictions
S
ince
Colorado
and
Washington
legalized
recreational
marijuana
use in 2012, nine more states
and the District of Columbia
have legalized small amounts
of marijuana for recreational
consumption. An additional 15
states have decriminalized it,
making it a civil infraction or
low-level misdemeanor with no
possibility of jail time. Despite
these recent trends, thousands
of people across the United
States continue to have records
of marijuana convictions, even
in states that have legalized or
decriminalized it. Though some
states have instituted policies
to address this, every state that
has legalized marijuana should
automatically
expunge
all
convictions and clear citizens’
records.
States
should
clear
marijuana convictions because
those records can continue to
haunt past offenders. Even if
the state in which they were
charged no longer considers it
a crime to possess or consume
small amounts of marijuana,
people still struggle to access
public services or get jobs.
A 71-year-old Vermont man
named Glyn Wilkinson was
first charged with a marijuana
violation in 1968. As a result,
he was unable to purchase
a firearm and even travel to
Canada. Wilkinson’s record
was cleared last year on an
“Expungement Day,” during
which he was required to
travel to Burlington. Rather
than making someone petition
the state and travel to clear
their record, the states that
have legalized marijuana use
should do it automatically.
Before
Illinois
legalized
marijuana, 42 percent of all
drug arrests in that state were
for cannabis-related offenses.
Since
prosecutors
targeted
marijuana users during the
War on Drugs, the default
should be to update every
offender’s record to current
standards. If someone was
charged with a misdemeanor
for an act that is now legal,
that charge should be wiped
from their record.
Furthermore,
marijuana
enforcement
historically
disproportionately targets African
Americans. Despite the fact that
people across all races consume
marijuana at similar rates, African
Americans are almost four times
as likely as white people to be
arrested for possession of cannabis.
Legalization is a way to stop this
specific instance of discrimination
going forward, but it does not
address the continuing effects
of these historically oppressive
policies.
While
automatically
clearing records does not erase
the actions of the past, it is a step
in the right direction. Since drug
convictions
negatively
impact
people’s eligibility for federal
student aid, clearing records is all
the more important in ensuring
the ability of Americans to attend
college and university.
Some states have taken the
initiative
and
have
already
begun to automatically clear
past
marijuana
convictions.
California in particular has been
making headway on this issue.
After marijuana was legalized
there, officials expected waves
of people to petition to clear
their old convictions, but the
process was so complicated most
people did not even attempt it.
To remedy that problem, the
counties of Los Angeles and
San Joaquin enacted plans to
automatically clear or decrease
the 54,000 recorded convictions.
San
Francisco
did
similarly
and promised to clear 9,300
convictions going back decades.
Aside from the concrete issues
associated with the failure of
states to remove convictions,
moral issues still exist with
leaving them on the books. The
point of maintaining criminal
records is to make certain
people who may come into
contact with the person, such
as employers or universities,
are aware of serious problems
regarding a person’s conduct.
But because certain states no
longer believe that possession
of marijuana is as serious an
offense,
punishing
someone
with that outdated standard
undermines the legal system.
To be clear, this does not
work the other way around. A
state should not press charges
against someone who acted
a certain way if the act was
subsequently
made
illegal.
That is called an ex post facto
law, and it is immoral to punish
someone based on an action
that was unpunishable when it
occurred. On the other hand, if
someone acts in a certain way
that society eventually comes
to understand as legal, their
record ought to reflect the same
data as someone who engaged
in the newly legal activity. The
difference between the two lies
in standards of culpability —
that of the state versus that of
an individual. If an individual
engages in an activity that is
legal when it happens, but the
state outlaws it afterwards, it
is unacceptable to punish the
individual for an action that was
legal at the time it happened.
On the other hand, if a state
eventually changes its laws to
legalize a certain action, the
state is acknowledging that it
was in the wrong to prosecute
anyone for that action when it
was illegal and therefore should
make amends by wiping the
convictions.
As more states legalize and
decriminalize marijuana, they
face the issue of what to do
with past convictions. Since
it is clear that keeping these
criminal records makes it far
more difficult for convicted
Americans to get jobs and
federal student aid, and that
it
disproportionately
targets
people of color, those states
should clear these convictions.
Joel Weiner can be reached at
jgweiner@umich.edu.
ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN
When partisanship poisons the Supreme Court
S
ince
its
inception,
the
Supreme Court has long
been
regarded
as
the
United
States’
arbitrator of the law.
It was created as a
neutral institution,
devoid of any bias
or party inclination,
only to intervene
when legislative or
executive
action
deviated from what
was constitutional.
Yet now the Supreme
Court,
previously
seen by some as
the quintessence of justice, has
been plagued by the partisanship
that has afflicted other facets of
American government. As a result,
American legislators should seek
to reconsider our interpretation
of
the
Constitution’s
“good
behavior” clause in order to better
combat the maladies partisanship
has created.
Tracing back to Federalist No.
78, Alexander Hamilton dictated
that the judicial branch would
be the weakest of the three, as
it would only issue judgments
and remain dependent on the
other two branches for efficacy.
Furthermore, Article III of the
Constitution, which established
the judicial branch of the federal
government,
refrained
from
delineating the exact organization
of the Supreme Court, leaving
its development largely up to
Congress. What was specified,
though, was that judges would
continue to hold their offices
during good behavior. This “good
behavior” clause maintains that
those who serve as judges for
the Supreme Court can only be
removed from office through
impeachment
—
essentially
establishing lifelong tenure.
The purpose of lifelong tenure
was to sequester judges from any
volatile political landscape that
could jeopardize the integrity of
the court. Judicial independence
was imperative to the notion of a
Supreme Court; with a lifetime
term, judges could execute their
duties in preserving the intentions
of the Constitution unbeholden
to external pressures.
The gravity of judicial
independence
only
intensified with Marbury
v.
Madison,
which
ruled that the Supreme
Court could void acts by
Congress that it deemed
unconstitutional.
As
a
result,
Supreme
Court justices are now
given
the
immense
responsibility
of
impartially interpreting
the Constitution out of duty simply
by serving on the highest tribunal
of the land.
But truly how impartial are the
judges of today? In the last two
Supreme Courts, more than 20
percent of all rulings were decided
by a 5-4 majority: pre-World War
II, less than 5 percent were. Unlike
in the past, the voting behavior
of most any justice can be highly
predictable given the party of the
president who appointed them.
In fact, six out of the ten most
important Supreme Court cases
thus far in 2019 were decided along
ostensible partisan lines, with an
added swing vote by either Chief
Justice John Roberts or Associate
Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This
newfound court polarization can
be attributed to the changing
dynamic
of
norms
regarding
judicial appointment, for example,
strategically-timed
retirements
by judges and near-exclusive
consideration
of
ideological
similarity and reliability by
presidents. With justices voting
so commonly along party lines in
controversial cases, the Supreme
Court seems to be nothing more
than a puppet of the executive
branch.
The framework of European
nations’ constitutional courts
demonstrate that perhaps our
Supreme Court isn’t doomed to
democratic degeneracy if reform
can be achieved. In Germany,
the
appointment
process
is
conducted
bipartisanly,
with
negotiation
between
both
parties
in
order
to
reach
concord on suitable judicial
candidates. Spain and Portugal
similarly require a legislative
supermajority
in
order
to
confirm
most
or
all
court
nominees. European nations’
implementation of a bipartisan
confirmation
process
seems
much more sensible, and the
United States would be wise to
imitate it if it hopes to overcome
its rampant hyperpartisanship.
Fortunately, modifying our
current Supreme Court wouldn’t
even
require
the
arduous
amendment process. The “good
behavior” clause is ambiguously
worded, and it’s possible that
our Founding Fathers meant
something other than till death
when articulating the length of
a judge’s tenure. Rather, “good
behavior” could plausibly be
interpreted as behavior in which
the duties of office are executed
professionally and righteously.
And with the blatant partisanship
seen on the Supreme Court today,
it isn’t unreasonable to believe
that the current state of the
court is not in good behavior.
Therefore,
a
simple
act
of
Congress would suffice as a step
in the right direction to fight the
plague of hyperpartisanship that
has weakened the integrity of our
nation.
Yasmeen Dohan can be reached at
yasmeend@umich.edu.
YASMEEN DOHAN | COLUMN
Who is to blame for America’s opioid crisis?
T
he epidemic surrounding
opioid
abuse
in
the
United
States
is
inescapable. On average, 140
Americans
die
everyday
of
drug overdoses, with over 90
of those deaths resulting from
opioid abuse alone. Accidental
drug overdoses recently became
the leading cause of death by
injury for Americans under 50,
surpassing homicides and car
accidents. Beyond the obvious
impact on human life, the current
opioid crisis has had massive
economic effects. The Centers
for Disease Control estimates
that the economic costs of the
opioid epidemic total around
$78.5 billion every year, including
“healthcare, lost productivity,
addiction
treatment,
and
criminal justice” costs. By this
point, it is clear that the opioid
epidemic is a colossal emergency
our society faces. Much less clear,
though, are the reasons behind
this outbreak of substance abuse
disorders and exactly what steps
can be taken to combat it.
The
catastrophic
level
of opioid abuse has become
increasingly common in recent
years. As cases of addiction
and overdose deaths reach new
heights, many Americans are
looking for the reasons behind
the mounting crisis and where
to place the blame. The obvious
first place to look for many is
the pharmaceutical industry.
In terms of history, this is
a logical place to start. The
opioid crisis in its current form
effectively began in the 1990s.
In 1996, Purdue Pharma began
manufacturing
OxyContin,
a narcotic used to manage
moderate to severe pain. Prior to
this point, doctors in the United
States had demonstrated a long
history of what was referred to
as “opiophobia,” or an extreme
resistance in prescribing opioids
because of the possibility of
addiction.
In order to combat this trend
and, in effect, increase their
drug
sales,
pharmaceutical
companies began to aggressively
market their products. Such
companies
also
started
to
engage in misleading advertising
techniques.
For
example,
pharmaceutical
company
Endo International sponsored
a website claiming that the
notion
of
opioid
painkillers
causing addiction was a myth.
As a result of such marketing,
health care providers began
to prescribe opioids at ever
increasing
rates.
Since
this
point,
opioids
have
become
dangerously
overprescribed,
with
prescription
sales
increasing
alarmingly
since
1999. Opioid use thus became
more widespread, and opioid-
related overdose deaths much
more common.
The immoral acts of companies
such
as
Purdue,
Allergan,
Johnson & Johnson and Endo
in prioritizing their own profits
over the lives of their consumers
are
clearly
reprehensible.
In fact, over 35 percent of
all
opioid-overdose
related
deaths
are
from
prescribed
opioids,
demonstrating
just
how influential the actions
of pharmaceutical companies
were in creating the current
epidemic. The guilt of the
pharmaceutical
industry
is
highlighted by the abundance
of lawsuits against varying
companies over their roles in
manufacturing the crisis.
However,
pharmaceutical
companies do not stand alone
in their guilt. The government
officials who enabled the sales
of opioid drugs to skyrocket are
equally to blame in the opioid
crisis. Agencies such as the
Food and Drug Administration
and the Drug Enforcement
Administration were created
to protect the American people
from abuses and misuses of
drug
distribution
such
as
this one. This past summer,
a federal court ordered the
release of DEA-collected data,
revealing
that
the
agency
began collecting data on the
manufacture, distribution, and
sale of all opioid pills in 2006.
Despite the documentation of
data recording the astronomical
surge in opioid sales and related
overdose
deaths,
the
DEA
effectively did nothing to help
save the lives of American
people. In conjunction with
the
malicious
marketing
techniques employed by the
pharmaceutical
industry
beginning in the 1990s, the
inaction of the government
in the face of clear misuse of
opioid prescription implicates it
in the current state of the opioid
epidemic.
It is difficult to deny that
the disastrous effects of the
opioid crisis clearly have their
origins in abuses of power and
governmental inaction. More
difficult than determining the
overall causes of the epidemic,
though, is figuring out how to
handle the effects. As hundreds
of thousands of people die
of drug overdoses annually,
it is clear that the current
methods of dealing with the
crisis are not working. Many
pharmaceutical companies are
in the early stages of being held
accountable for their own parts
in the epidemic. Most recently,
a $260 million settlement was
reached between three major
drug distributors and two Ohio
counties,
allowing
them
to
avoid the first federal opioid
trial. The government should
begin to acknowledge their own
guilt by vowing to combat the
epidemic more aggressively.
They can first do this by
portraying opioid addiction
and related substance abuse
issues as the mental health
issues
they
are,
instead
of
criminalizing
them.
The
decriminalization
is
particularly necessary in Black
communities or communities
of lower socioeconomic status.
The majority of the media
attention on the opioid crisis
has been on white Americans,
and the reason for this may
be the fact that opioid deaths
among
white
individuals
outnumber
those
among
Black individuals. However,
deaths from opioid overdoses
are more rapidly increasing
among
Black
Americans.
Furthermore,
Black
drug
addicts are more likely to be
portrayed as criminals than
their
white
counterparts,
who are more often seen as
requiring medical treatment.
In the pursuit of combating
the opioid epidemic through
decriminalization,
it
is
imperative
to
include
all
demographics in this process,
especially those who have been
hit hardest by the criminal
justice system.
Beyond
the
total
decriminalization of opioids,
the
federal
government
should fund and implement
effective
public
education
and
awareness
campaigns
about
the
opioid
crisis,
including
instructional
information
about
where
to find effective treatment
options.
Furthermore,
the
government
should
additionally
develop,
fund
and implement more effective
school and community-based
prevention techniques. These
techniques
must
be
non-
punitive in nature and address
the often underlying mental
health issues that contribute
to opioid addiction.
Finally,
the
federal
government must circle back
to the origins of the crisis and
be more stringent in holding
the DEA accountable in their
documentation of opioid sales.
This can include requiring
that the DEA uphold stricter
standards
in
the
issuance
of registrations to doctors
with the ability to prescribe
opioid medications, as well
as the prohibition of direct-
to-consumer
advertising
of
opioids.
The
complexity
and
magnitude
of
the
current
opioid crisis in the United
States is overwhelming. It is
important to avoid getting
caught up in the intricacies
and hold those responsible to
account. By holding both the
pharmaceutical
companies
and the federal government
accountable for the epidemic,
society can begin to more fully
combat the crisis and prevent
any further catastrophic loss
of life.
Alanna Berger can be reached at
balanna@umich.edu.
Pharmaceutical
companies do
not stand alone
in their guilt
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
YASMEEN
DOHAN
The Supreme
Court seems to
be nothing more
than a puppet
of the executive
branch
Punishing
someone with
that outdated
standard
undermines the
legal system