Buckle your seat belts, folks — for Public Disclosure’s next installment, it’s time to learn about some new developments in the world of criminal policies — particularly, some recent developments in our state’s legislature.

Most of us, including myself before I began studying public policy at USC, don’t pay nearly enough attention to the goings-on in our federal government, let alone what they’re doing for us up in Sacramento. According to a POLITICO poll, the vast majority of millennials can’t name one of their home state’s U.S. senators — which spells out bad news for the people we’re sending only a few hundred miles away for statewide politics. 

It’s time to change that — let’s start with finding out what they’ve been up to lately in the world of criminal policy making. Knowledge is power.

S.B. 58 — Legalization of Psychedelics

Fueling the fire of such a heated national conversation on the topic of crime is the growing chasm between federal and state rules of drug legalization — medical marijuana is legalized in 40 of our states and recreational marijuana in 23, and yet marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I (super, duper illegal with a “high potential for abuse”) drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970. 

It’s been around since former President Richard Nixon, and it goes without saying that we know a lot more about the true effects of these drugs — and added a few more disgraced presidents to our history books — since then. 

But a different set of drugs with a similar story to marijuana is what’s been making California headlines lately — psychedelics. This month, the California State Senate passed a bill, known as S.B. 58, to legalize the use by people aged 21 and older of multiple psychedelic substances, including psilocybin “magic mushrooms,” mescaline and DMT. If it makes it through the State Assembly and gets approved by Gov. Gavin Newsom, it’ll take effect Jan. 1, 2025.

But why are our lawmakers changing their sentiments about it since the CSA was passed? It turns out that psilocybin and even MDMA, which didn’t make it into the final bill, have very promising results when it comes to treating PTSD and other mental illnesses for both military veterans and civilians. Therapeutic research on the drugs has exploded in recent years, revealing psychedelics’ potential to rewire a patient’s brain circuitry in many positive ways to heal from their trauma. 

Over 200 clinical trials are registered with the government as I write this — and with about 6% of all Americans predicted to be diagnosed with PTSD at some point in their lives, it’s a worthwhile conversation to get into with the people around you.

As of publication, five states have decriminalized psilocybin in at least some of their municipalities, and Oregon is fully decriminalized statewide. The state senator who represents the USC area, Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, was even a coauthor of S.B. 58. 

S.B. 14 — Trafficking and Serious Felonies

The bill, clearing the State Assembly with a 79-0 vote, will make child sex trafficking a serious felony case under California law if it’s passed by the State Senate and approved by Gov. Newsom — meaning that repeat offenders of this crime would face more jail time than under current law and be prevented from being released from prison early.

But what’s the difference between a regular California felony and a serious one? It mainly lies in plea bargaining: the common process defendants of various kinds of felonies engage in to avoid taking their case to trial, and often, lessen the amount of time on their sentence by pleading guilty. It’s by no means a perfect system, often distorting unruly behavior on the part of prosecutors or even leading to false guilty pleas for defendants, but 94% of successfully prosecuted state criminal cases are resolved with these bargains.

If you’re charged with a serious felony in California, this is not an avenue you can go down, and on the matter of child trafficking, there’s a strong consensus by our state legislators that that loophole needs to be closed.

A.B. 1008 — The Fair Chance Act

This bill, known as a “ban the box” policy, was passed in 2018 to ensure as equitable of a job hiring process as possible for applicants who have a prior criminal record and are attempting to make a full return back to society after serving a sentence. If a business in the state has five or more employees, they cannot include any questions about an applicant’s criminal record in “help wanted” ads, applications, interviews or at any point before making a conditional offer to the candidate. 

Why do I mention an older bill, apart from the fact that “ban the box” laws have gained traction in 37 states and more than 150 cities and counties so far? Recently, the federal government is joining in on the practice, with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issuing rules for federal agencies that also prohibit federal government employers from asking about criminal history until a conditional offer. (Exceptions can be made for certain law enforcement and national security roles on a case-by-case basis.)

CJ Haddad is a junior writing about local, state and federal laws we use in our daily lives. She is also an associate managing editor at the Daily Trojan. Her column, “Public Disclosure,” runs every other Thursday.