Crime

California Ends Mandatory Minimums for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, Ending Archaic War on Drugs Era Policy

The bill, authored by state Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo of Los Angeles, was backed by a coalition of state and national groups, including the California Public Defenders Association, Drug Policy Alliance, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and a range of drug treatment professional.

Published

5 years ago

October 7, 2021

Isabelle Price

An injectable drug is loaded into a syringe while prescription medication is strewn about haphazardly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation Tuesday to end mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses, laying to rest an archaic vestige of the War on Drugs and “tough-on-crime” policy era in California and acting on the recommendations of a state commission created to suggest changes to California’s criminal justice system.

SB7 ends mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses, giving judges the discretion to assign alternative consequences, such as probation, treatment, or rehabilitative programs, where determined appropriate. Current law prohibits judges from doing so even for drug offenses involving marijuana, which the state has legalized for recreational use and licensed sale.

Such mandated sentencing, implemented in the late 1980s at the height of the War on Drugs, has been criticized for its role in mass incarceration and, in recent years, critics have pointed out that the laws reflect the difference in the government’s approach to the crack cocaine epidemic, which disproportionately impacted African Americans, and the opioid addiction crisis, which has heavily impacted white Americans. Some other states have already repealed their mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

“Our prisons and jails are filled with people — particularly from communities of color — who have committed low-level, nonviolent drug offenses and who would be much better served by non-carceral options like probation, rehabilitation and treatment,” Weiner said in a written statement after Newsom’s signing. “[SB7] is an important measure that will help end California’s system of mass incarceration.”

The Committee on Revising the Penal Code, a committee established in 2019 to recommend changes to California’s criminal laws, recommended ending mandatory minimums in California in its first annual report in 2020. “Aspects of California’s criminal legal system are undeniably broken,” the report stated at the time. “The current system has racial inequity at its core,” and “people of color are disproportionately punished under state laws.”

Ending mandatory minimums was just one of 10 recommendations made by the committee. Others included establishing a process for reviewing the sentences of people already sentenced under unduly harsh sentencing laws, eliminating incarceration for certain traffic offenses, and requiring that short prison sentences be served in county jail instead of prison.

Legislators are considering some of the committee’s other recommendations.

This story was written using information from the Drug Policy Alliance and the Committee on Revising the Penal Code.

Isabelle Price

Posts by Isabelle Price

Up Next

The Lookout: Gov. Newsom Signs Bills Written to Fix Injustices

Don't Miss

BlackHistoryEveryday.com

Isabelle Price

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026

Published

1 week ago

October 4, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of September 23 – 29, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of September 23 – 29, 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

September 27, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Community

Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins’s Bill Would Pause Law Enforcement’s Use of Shock Gloves Pending Study

The device at the center of the debate is known as the G.L.O.V.E., an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of the gloves, which are designed to deliver an electric shock through an officer’s hand.

Published

3 weeks ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

Asm. Dr. LaShae-Sharp Collins (D-San Diego). File photos by Antonio Ray Harvey. April, 29 2025.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

A bill temporarily prohibiting law enforcement agencies from using electric shock gloves in California is awaiting action by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2760, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), passed the Senate 29-9 on Aug. 31. The Assembly concurred in Senate amendments the same day on a 55-16 vote.

The bill would prohibit state, local and federal law enforcement agencies from using wearable electroshock devices in California until Jan. 1, 2030. It would also bar agencies from using state funds to purchase the devices and require them to update their use-of-force policies accordingly.

Traditional handheld devices, including tasers and stun guns, are exempt.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.

Sharp-Collins introduced the measure after reviewing information indicating that the devices could cause serious injury or death if used without adequate safeguards and training.

“AB 2760 draws a line that public safety technology must be proven safe and accountable before it is employed. Not after someone is killed or injured,” said Sharp-Collins, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).

“Our commitment is to protect our communities, especially the most vulnerable. That is what AB 2760 is about and that is what AB 2760 will do,” Sharp-Collins told her colleagues.

During the Assembly debate, Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom (D-Stockton), also a CLBC member, thanked law enforcement representatives for helping negotiate amendments to the bill.

“This is something new to us (and) it’s something that absolutely should be studied,” Ransom said. “I appreciate law enforcement for agreeing to work with the legislature to figure out if this is an appropriate tool to be used.”

Neither the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department nor the Los Angeles Police Department has reported using electric shock gloves. However, the Santa Monica and El Monte police departments have obtained devices for testing.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office purchased 10 shock gloves as part of a $35,000 acquisition that also included 10 remotely activated shock bands. Sheriff’s officials had been developing training and policies for the devices before AB 2760 advanced.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) opposed the legislation, arguing that it would unnecessarily force agencies to change their use-of-force policies and could compromise public safety.

“I don’t disagree with the author that the electric shocks are not a great option, but at the end of the day, I think it’s important to understand that we need to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves safe and the community safe,” Strickland said.

Supporters countered that wearable electroshock devices have not been sufficiently studied and could pose particular risks to immigrants, children, older adults and other vulnerable groups.

“People who are Black or Brown could be test subjects for these gloves of torment,” Mark González (D-Los Angeles) said. “I appreciate law enforcement for agreeing to work with the legislature.”