As he was awaiting trial, one of his primary stressors was his public defender being able to reduce the drug sales charge because that was his only path to being able to access food while he tried to reintegrate into society and pursue meaningful work and education.

I learned about this policy from a loved one who was facing drug charges, and if he was convicted he would lose his access to SNAP, which he relied on as he went back to school and looked for a job — which is incredibly hard to get with a criminal record.

Some of the conditions of the modified bans include attending drug treatment programs on a regular basis at the supervision of a parole officer. Why would someone who sells drugs be mandated to go to meetings for people who use drugs? Additionally — what does this have to do with food security?

Since its passing, some states have modified or removed this ban, and some states have left the ban completely in tact. Many scholars assert that even “modified bans” are basically as punitive as full bans - placing individuals under state surveillance for longer periods of time than is warranted.

This means that someone who has served their sentence for a drug charge cannot access food assistance, further isolating them from “traditional” means of making a living and getting their basic needs met.