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

