Maryland's proposed Clean Slate Act would expunge certain cannabis, misdemeanor charges
BALTIMORE -- A proposed bill in Maryland could expunge criminal records for some cannabis possession and misdemeanor charges.
The Maryland Clean Slate Act would require the state's Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to expunge court records for cannabis possession charges if they were issued before July 1, 2023, or if at least three years have passed since the case.
Misdemeanor charges could also be expunged if seven years have passed since the cases. Domestic-related crimes and charges of second-degree assault would not be eligible to be expunged.
The proposed bill would require that all electronic court records and references to the specific criminal case be removed from public view by July 2027. The bill would not require documents or media to be redacted or criminal records to be destroyed.
Starting in August 2027, the Clean Slate Act would allow court officials to identify cases that are eligible for expungement under the required criteria. Those cases would be sent to DPSCS and would need to be expunged within 30 days of the notification.
The Clean Slate Act has a hearing in the state Senate scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 5.
Cannabis convictions in Maryland
Recreational marijuana use in Maryland was legalized in July 2023. One year later Gov. Wes Moore pardoned more than 175,00 convictions for cannabis or drug paraphernalia possession.
The executive order was the nation's largest pardon for misdemeanor cannabis possession charges. The measure made Maryland the first state to include paraphernalia possession in a cannabis pardon, according to the governor.
"Maryland made history when we legalized cannabis by referendum. But we cannot celebrate the benefits of legalization while forgetting the consequences of criminalization," Gov. Moore said. "No Marylander should face barriers to housing, employment, or education based on convictions for conduct that is no longer illegal."
The pardon included 15,000 simple cannabis possession convictions and 18,000 misdemeanor convictions for intent to use drug paraphernalia.
Cannabis impact on public health
The Maryland Department of Health began monitoring the impacts of cannabis on public health by launching a dashboard in November 2024.
The dashboard tracks emergency room visits, youth and adult use and calls to Maryland and D.C. poison control centers.
"By tracking key indicators, we can create programs and resources aimed at preventing youth cannabis use, promoting safe storage of products to prevent accidental poisonings, and ensuring that existing services effectively support Marylanders facing adverse effects from cannabis use," said Deputy Secretary for Public Health Dr. Nilesh Kalyanaraman.
Between 2021 and 2023, calls to poison centers serving Maryland nearly doubled for kids nine and younger and tripled for those ages 10 to 14, according to the dashboard.
The data also showed a 21% increase in cannabis-related hospitalizations between 2023 and 2024.
rise in hospitalizations due to cannabis vape products.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Chesapeake restoration crashes, greenwashing pervades
Gov. Wes Moore (D) signs the Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act on May 13, 2025, with a basket of greens brought by a Montgomery County farmer to celebraate the signing. (Photo by Bryan Sears/Maryland Matters) The Chesapeake Bay is being polluted with huge flows of farm pollutants and environmental greenwashing. Elected and appointed government officials are aided and abetted by supposed conservation leaders. Government officials are driven by hypocritically burnishing their Green credentials with nothing-burgers while avoiding offending polluting interests. Some environmental organization leaders are also driven to claim significant policy successes when there are none. This is done to ensure that they do not lose governmental and private funding by criticizing the lack of meaningful measures to significantly curb Bay pollutants. These opportunists have become environmental mercenaries. Sadly, gone are a formerly robust group of experienced environmental journalists. The few new ones are overburdened with other assignments and succumb to Greenwashing. A prime example is the Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act. On May 14, Maryland Matters reported on the bill's signing, dutifully quoting its progenitor, Gov. Wes Moore: 'This is the most comprehensive piece of Chesapeake Bay legislation that Maryland has seen in years.' This is a Trumpian overstatement of epic proportions reminiscent of former Gov. Larry Hogan's discredited claim in 2019 that his efforts resulted in a Chesapeake Bay 'cleaner than it has been in recorded history.' A close examination of Moore's Legacy legislation reveals that it does very little if anything to reduce the Bay's major pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and toxic chemicals. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. Maryland Matters also gave a mostly favorable boost to Moore's 'complex' legislation on Feb. 11, mostly parroting Moore and his secretary of Agriculture's propaganda. The reporting did note that 'Gov. Wes Moore (D) announced with some fanfare in the fall that he planned to introduce legislation during this year's General Assembly session to expand and modernize Maryland's efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay, telling assembled leaders from every state in the Bay watershed, 'It's up to us to protect it.'' Moore was speaking as chair of the Bay Program's Executive Council. Moore is obviously desperate to burnish his presidential cred, as was Hogan. The legislation changes little in the status quo so as not to upset agribusiness and commercial fishing interests that might impede his presidential ambitions. From my 55 years of environmental advocacy, I can discern greenwashing, and this bill epitomizes such. Let's examine the Legacy Act's details: First, a person who has a tidal fish license or commercial channa license and harvests and processes finfish on a vessel by ikejime for direct sale to restaurants need not have a food establishment license. Secondly, minor changes are made regarding the procedures for adoption of fishery management plans. Nothing is included that would better conserve crashing fish and crab populations. Aquaculture regulations are tweaked but there are no needed changes to better advance oyster aquaculture. The bill allows publicly funded oyster restoration projects to generate water quality trading credits allowing pollution reductions from planting oysters to be traded for increased pollution elsewhere. In a separate bill, oyster poaching penalties are relaxed. The Legacy Act establishes a Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Department of Natural Resources that simply formalizes the existing water quality monitoring system. Big deal. But the major initiative in this grab bag is yet another voluntary agricultural program termed LEEF, Leaders in Environmentally Engaged Farming. Despite my repeated efforts to dissuade the secretary of Agriculture from such a meaningless approach that would waylay needed regulatory efforts, the legislation was enacted into law. The secretary acknowledged publicly that voluntary farm measures have failed to achieve the necessary pollution reductions. Farmers who choose to may apply for certification to be created akin to LEED building certifications except this is entirely voluntary and there are no details on its implementation or on attaining certification levels except: Credit must be given for preserving farmland, participation in farmers markets, donations to food banks, on-farm research and for farmers lecturing about agriculture. Instead of acting to curb the largest source of Bay-choking pollution by better regulatory measures and enforcement, and despite knowing that voluntary farm measures do not work well, LEEF would perpetuate the desecration of our environmental legacy. LEEF already was used to defeat legislation requiring riparian buffer plantings on 2,665 acres of Critical Area farmland. Remarkably, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's president is quoted supporting this fraud: 'With federal cuts and rollbacks looming heavily on our state, Maryland's environmental leadership is more important than ever. This Act will help maintain forward momentum and ensure that investments in clean air, clean water, habitats, and local economies are secured.' With such gubernatorial and NGO leadership, may God Save The Bay!
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With Baumgartner in audience, Trump signs bill blocking Washington's electric vehicle mandate; state sues in response
Jun. 12—WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed legislation into law that blocks Washington and other states from following California's lead in phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Spokane was among dozens of Republican lawmakers invited to the White House for the occasion, which the president used to riff on a variety of topics in addition to the bill. Between calling Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell "a numbskull" and highlighting his own popularity on TikTok, Trump celebrated the revocation of Biden-era waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that let California impose stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. After the Biden administration allowed California to ban the sale of gas-powered cars starting in 2035, Washington followed suit in 2022, requiring that all new cars sold in the state be either fully electric or plug-in hybrids. A total of 17 states has adopted similar rules that the newly signed law revokes. "The automakers didn't know what to do, because they're really building cars for two countries," Trump said. "When you have 17 states, you're building cars for two countries." In an interview before the bill-signing ceremony, Baumgartner said the California regulation and its progeny would have been devastating to the U.S. economy. "There does not exist the ability to magically create electric semi-trucks that move nearly 70% of the goods that Americans consume, so it would have been crippling to our economy if this rule was left in place," he said. "You can't run semi-trucks across America on unicorn laughter and aspirational dreams of environmental extremists." To revoke the waivers, the EPA issued under a previous administration, lawmakers invoked the Congressional Review Act, which allowed them to skirt the 60-vote supermajority required to pass most bills in the Senate. They did so despite the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber's neutral adviser on rules, both informing senators that the EPA waivers didn't count as the executive-branch rules for which the act applies. Despite near-unanimous opposition from Democratic senators, the bill revoking California's waivers received significant bipartisan support in the House, plus a single Democratic senator, Michigan's Elissa Slotkin. Trump was surprised on Thursday when a GOP lawmaker in the room told him 35 House Democrats had voted in favor. One of them was Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of southwest Washington, who runs an auto repair shop with her husband and has been a frequent critic of her party's push to speed a transition to electric vehicles. Shortly after Thursday's ceremony concluded, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a joint lawsuit with nine other states challenging the elimination of California's waiver. The suit alleges that the resolution violates the separation of powers, the Take Care Clause and multiple federal statutes, including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff states allege that the Congressional Review Act has "never before been used in any context that resembles this one. It has certainly never been used, as it was here, to negate particular state laws." The lawsuit seeks to have the resolution declared unlawful and to require the federal government to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. "Transportation is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas pollution in Washington, and our residents understand the transition to zero-emission vehicles is critical in the fight against climate change," Brown said in a statement Thursday. "This is the Trump administration's latest unlawful attempt to derail Washington's and the nation's transition to a clean future." At the White House, Trump railed against Democrats' efforts to use state and federal laws to phase out gas-powered vehicles — the country's biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions — and speed the adoption of wind, solar and other low-carbon energy sources. "They're making you buy stuff that doesn't work," the president said. "You should be given the option to buy the electric car, by a gasoline-powered car, buy a hybrid. Probably not hydrogen, because hydrogen has the tendency that when it blows up, you're gonzo. It's over." After the room broke out in laughter at that line, Trump turned to Rep. Steve Scalise and said, "It'll make your accident look like peanuts," apparently referring to the 2017 shooting that left the Louisiana Republican in critical condition. Washington state officials have taken steps in recent days to prepare for the new federal law. In a June 6 memo, the Washington State Department of Ecology notified vehicle manufacturers that it would temporarily pause compliance requirements for some vehicle categories. "This recent federal action introduces new uncertainty for states, manufacturers, and consumers at a time when both businesses and consumers are making real progress in reducing the transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions," Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller said in a statement June 6. "It undermines states' rights, negatively impacts public health, and puts U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage in a global market that is rapidly transitioning to zero-emission vehicle technology." Sixkiller added that the agency would work with legislators, industry partners, local governments and other states to "stay on track and ensure continued progress toward our climate and public health goals." After the federal bill cleared the Senate in late May, Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement that the action was "brazenly out of step with the law, science, and public will." "For more than 50 years, states have possessed the ability to adopt stronger vehicle emissions standards to protect public health. Washington has exercised that right, along with 17 other states, resulting in cleaner air and healthier communities," Ferguson said. "Despite this retreat from public health by the federal government, I'm committed to ensuring Washington moves forward on building a healthier, cleaner future." Thursday's bill signing drew praise of the Washington Trucking Association, which said it remains committed to working with Washington lawmakers and the Department of Ecology on a "workable path to electrification." "California's EV trucking mandates have been a disaster for states like Washington, and have caused real harm to the trucking industry, a key link in our trade-dependent state's supply chain network," the association's president and CEO, Sheri Call, said in a statement. "Washington state does not have the infrastructure in place to properly institute such a sweeping mandate like this, and the technology has not advanced enough yet to support the trucking industry's rapid transition to clean energy. Our neighbors in Oregon recently opted out of these mandates for these same reasons." Vicki Giles Fabré, vice president of the Washington State Auto Dealers Association, said that Washington's franchised new car and truck dealers have "made substantial investments in electrification and remain committed to selling electric and hybrid vehicles." "The Washington State Auto Dealers Association intends to work with state policymakers to find solutions that incentivize increased adoption of these vehicles, while also supporting the needs of franchised dealers, their employees, and the customers they serve," Fabré said in a statement Wednesday. According to Sixkiller, one in five new vehicles sold today runs on zero-emission technology. "We're not going to slow down that progress. Washingtonians already experience the impacts of climate change every year, from drought and wildfire to flooding and sea-level rise," Sixkiller said in a statement following the Attorney General's lawsuit. "As our Attorney General's Office fights to protect our state's rights, we'll continue working with the Legislature, industry partners, local governments, and other states to continue our progress on clean transportation. At a time of great uncertainty, that's a promise we can keep." Orion Donovan Smith's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
