1 As of today, which of the 50 states have “not enacted a statute legalizing marijuana in the State”? (Sec. 3(a)(1))
The answer is somewhere between 7 and 38 right now, but I’m not sure that even Senator Booker could say which, if any, of the 38 would be “Covered states.” As far as I know, no journalist has asked him.
2 The Act defines “disproportionate arrest rate” as when the percentage of minority marijuana arrests is “higher than the percentage of the non-minority individual population of the State…” Really? (Sec. 3(a)(2))
If “yes,” in New Jersey where the percentage of whites is 58.5 %, the percentage of minority marijuana arrests would have to be higher than 58.5% to be disproportionate, which is nonsense. The definitions in the Act are riddled with this and other “errors.”
3 Why should states that have legalized marijuana but continue to have disproportionate marijuana arrest or incarceration rates be eligible for funds denied “Covered states”? (Sec. 3(b))
The answer might be that @SenBooker believes that it is far more important that that the federal government “encourage” states to legalize marijuana, whatever that means, than for a state to end its disproportionate marijuana arrests and incarceration rates, but my guess is that the Senator just didn’t give the MJA sufficient thought.
4 Did you intend to give the right to bring a federal civil suit to every “individual who is aggrieved by a disproportionate arrest rate or a disproportionate incarceration rate,” even if the offense is not a marijuana-related offense? (Sec. 3(d))
If the answer to this is “yes,” then @NORML and others missed the headline, for this seldom mentioned provision of the MJA would bring a tsunami of litigation of unimaginable magnitude.