If he was otherwise qualified for the job and had done his time, I'd give him a chance

You'd have to, because this bill wouldn't give you any discretion in the matter.

How would you like to learn that your kid can never get a job above minimum wage because he got caught smoking pot/drinking under age when he was 16?

I am opposed to charging juveniles as adults, if that's what you mean. Because a criminal history check would not turn up sealed, juvenile convictions.

Ex-offenders are absolutely penalized, and excessively so

Better to penalize employers, eh?

Fine, your kid just turned 18 at college, and was busted for smoking pot.  He will never be able to hold a real job, because he now has a felony record.  But that's fine by you, right?  Because after all, you want to make sure that people who get convicted of crimes, serve their time, and get out will never have a chance to earn a good living, and live normal lives.

Thalia

Since when is smoking weed a felony? Ever hear of misdemeanor posession?

I found a job where they cut you some slack if you've been busted for possesion:

No possession of marijuana/hashish within the last 3 years. No possession of other illegal drugs within the last 10 years.
No possession of marijuana/hashish over 15 times, regardless of the time frame. No possession within the last 3 years.

That's for the Washington State Patrol.

You forgot the part about the part below " Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" eliminates you quite effectively.  In other words, if you're lucky enough to have a daddy who has lots of pull, or a good lawyer you are OK.  But if you're convicted of that felony, you're screwed.

Thalia

...busted for smoking pot...now has a felony record

There are two broad categories of criminal offenses, Thalia: felonies and misdemeanors. Felonies are the really bad ones (and sometimes the really, really bad ones), and misdemeanors are the not-so-bad ones. Maybe the laws are tough where you live, but in the District of Columbia possession of a controlled substance is a misdemeanor.

And co-workers.

How would you like to learn that your kid can never get a job above minimum wage because he got caught smoking pot/drinking under age when he was 16?

Can you name a single such child?

I only know California law:

Possession with intent to sell any amount of marijuana is a felony. Health and Safety Code 11359.
Cultivation of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358.

And it so happens I do know someone who was arrested for cultivating marijuana, charged with a felony, locked up for 3 years, and since then been unable to get a job except in the construction industry.  He wasn't a child, he was 20, and a student at a university.  Unsurprisingly the university told him goodbye when he was convicted of a felony.

Thalia

Possession with intent to sell any amount of marijuana is a felony

Well, if you're smoking it, then it hardly seems that you have an intent to distribute. (And if someone says, "hey, dude, don't bogart that joint," then they should share some culpability if you pass it along, right? If not, then California law is an ass.)

And it so happens I do know someone who was arrested for cultivating marijuana, charged with a felony, locked up for 3 years, and since then been unable to get a job except in the construction industry

Can't get a job in farming? I mean, he surely has aptitude and experience.

Anyway, the main point is if you want to hire the guy, then go right ahead. And if someone else decides that they'd prefer not to hire someone with a demonstrated history of flouting the law, then they should have that right as well.

Well, if you're smoking it, then it hardly seems that you have an intent to distribute.

A lot of possession laws are designed in such a way that just having a certain amount of pot (or growing more than a certain amount) "proves" your intent - so if you buy 2lb just so you don't have to be running to your corner dealer every week, and you get busted just after you make the deal, depending on the state (and how forgiving the local prosecutor is feeling) you could easily end up in deep shit.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

...so if you buy 2lb just so you don't have to be running to your corner dealer every week, and you get busted just after you make the deal, depending on the state (and how forgiving the local prosecutor is feeling) you could easily end up in deep shit

That is, perhaps, an argument against draconian drug laws, but it's not relevant to taking away the right to screen job applicants to weed* out the criminals.

*No pun intended.

Would give firms that hire convicted felons protection from lawsuits?

How about you personally? Say some guy driving a company truck crashed into you when you were walking on the sidewalk, the driver of the truck was drunk and high, and it turned out the driver had felony convictions for drugs and drunk driving, because the company doesn't bother to do background checks. You would decline to sue, because you believe in giving "second chances" to people with those types of convictions?

I believe in checking for relevant background.  A driver cannot have drunk driving convictions, a bank teller cannot have embezzelment convictions, etc.  But why the heck would I care that someone I'm hiring to be my secretary smoked pot in college?  I do not think that prohibiting background checks is a good idea, it's not.  I do think that ensuring that former convicts cannot get jobs by making these types of background checks a reason to never hire (see the job application you linked above, re "any felony conviction as an adult means no hire) to be an equally bad idea.

Thalia

why the heck would I care that someone I'm hiring to be my secretary smoked pot in college?

This is your own judgment call about whether the particular felony is important enough.  I agree, a felony conviction for smoking pot (and, by the way, how often does THAT actually happen?) shouldn't disqualify a secretary, but I would certainly think about disqualifying an applicant for, say, embezzlement, or any type of fraud.  But that freedom is denied employers in DC now.

That would be incorrect, since THIS IS NOT LAW.  It was vetoed by the governor.

As to whether this ever happens, in 2000 there were 734,000 marijuana arrests and approximately 41,000 felony convictions.  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524483_10

It's not inconsequential.

Thalia

I believe in checking for relevant background

A demonstrated history of dishonesty or disrespect for authority is always relevant to the suitability of a particular applicant for a job.

You're right.  But I consider the dishonesty of someone who used cocaine but happened to have an influential father to be the same as someone who used cocaine and got caught & convicted.  Since I can't seem to find out the first, why do I have the right to the second, once the person has served the time?  The likelihood that someone has a criminal record is pretty linearly related to their family income.  If you are lucky enough to be born into a well-off family, you're much less likely to have the felony record.  In my extended circle of friends I would say 90% have smoked marijuana, 3% have been arrested, and 1% have been convicted of possession.  Why is the 1% ethically different from the other 89%?

Thalia

Since I can't seem to find out the first, why do I have the right to the second..?

Above you admitted that it's a good idea to check the driving record of someone applying for a job as a driver. Why? There are plenty of folks who drive recklessly yet are never given a ticket. Since you can't find out about those drivers, then, by your logic, no one should be allowed to check the record of any driver.

If you are lucky enough to be born into a well-off family, you're much less likely to have the felony record

I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe that wealthy people commit crimes at the same rate as poor people. I mean, do you really believe that or did you simply have trouble expressing yourself?

I should have been more clear:  If you are lucky enough to be born into a well-off family, you're much less likely to have the felony record EVEN IF YOU DO THE SAME THINGS AS SOMEONE POORER.  Even if you get caught doing them (which is much less likely if your parents are rich).  Even if you go to trial doing them (which is much less likely if your parents are rich).  Even if you get convicted (which is much less likely if your parents are rich).  Even if you get sentenced (which is much less likely if your parents are rich).

There ya go.  Clear enough for you?

Thalia

If you are lucky enough to be born into a well-off family, you're much less likely to have the felony record EVEN IF YOU DO THE SAME THINGS AS SOMEONE POORER....

...There ya go.  Clear enough for you?

No, it's not clear enough. Not at all.

Never mind the vagaries of the criminal justice system. What I want to know is whether you actually believe that rich folks commit serious crimes at the same rate as poor folks. The evidence is quite unambiguous that the poor commit more crimes, and that is the primary reason why a poor person is much more likely to have a felony record than a wealthy person.

I understand that poor people commit more crimes than rich people.  I also understand that poor people are treated much worse by the criminal law system than rich people.  I believe that it is the combination of these factors that causes so many more poor people to be in jail.

I grew up middle class, in a mixed neighborhood, and I saw poor kids being charged with crimes while their rich friends who with them got away with a slap on the wrist.

I understand that poor people commit more crimes than rich people.  I also understand that poor people are treated much worse by the criminal law system than rich people.  I believe that it is the combination of these factors that causes so many more poor people to be in jail.

I grew up middle class, in a mixed neighborhood, and I saw poor kids being charged with crimes while their rich friends who were with them got away with a slap on the wrist.