I take atorvastatin for high cholesterol; it says don't eat grapefruit on the side of my medication bottle. I never really thought about why, but this gives me more reasons to avoid it. Although now I have a huge craving for grapefruit juice, of course.
I know people that committed crimes in the 60s-70s-80s and were convicted but no one would ever know because the record keeping at the time was temporal.
My one felony from 12 years ago for smoking pot in public has cost me more money/jobs/promotions/relationships from Google searches and background checks than anything imaginable [in my opinion].
I believe that many criminals simply go back to crime since they're unhireable now that information is at everyone's fingertips.
Debt to society is never paid anymore. We have the Chinese "social credit system" in the U.S.; it's simply not announced the way theirs is.
Arizona; they do not pardon felonies. They will let you "restore your rights" after a number of years; which I have done, but it was expensive and required representation. I can vote, but I can't do much else.
The disenfranchisement is seen as part of the sentence. Traditionally, the crimes deserving of this were very serious such as murder, rape, felony robbery, etc. The people committing these crimes were considered as having violated the social contract in such a manner that society could no longer trust them.
Unfortunately, many less serious offences have been classified as more serious in order to be "hard on crime" leading to many generally trustworthy citizens losing rights.
<IANAL>
The wording of the second clause of the 14th Amendment implies that states are permitted to disenfranchise their citizens in cases of rebellion or crime, as it requires those states to adjust their allotment of representatives when they do.
Also, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that citizens shall maintain or regain voting rights after having served their time, nor does it forbid disenfranchisement of voting rights, so the power to do so devolves to the states.
</IANAL>
This isn't uncommon. Twitter is another prime example. Their "rules" state that you cannot (since 2009) make a three letter handle in your username, and yet @AOC was able to acquire hers. I don't have any problem with this but it does bring up the fact that there seems to be certain people able to skirt the rules because of "who they are". What about famous people getting verified on Twitter when the verification program was supposedly halted? It goes on and on, but the fact of the matter is "money talks".
When the incentives align they will surely bend the rules. It's in Instagram's and Twitter's interest to have the royal family and high profile politicians, respectively, active, happy, and easy to find.
Do you hire felons (ex-felons, with clean record for 7+ years)? Being in the cannabis industry is bound to have attachments that were previously on the south-side of the law; if not - why? ; if so - hi
Local governments are actually very supportive of former criminals who were penalized for cannabis-related infringements. If you want to drop a resume, we can certainly see if there’s a good fit! Feel free to email careers@getnabis.com.
The sad part about this is the fact that there are many youngsters in the comments of the page begging for instructions on how to make it, with none being revealed.
Seriously though, the guy is VERIFIED. Literally should tell you that everyone is going to want to be in your mentions, especially businesses. You're like an advertising magnet.
