California Thought Legalizing Theft Worked Until Thousands of Stores Closed Forever (Video)

In this 31 August 2025 published video, host Cash Jordan talks about how California lawmakers want to make it legal for people to commit crimes of necessity, further softening the punishment for crimes which shockingly used to be considered felonies a few years ago.

Back in 2014, California did not legalize theft; rather, Proposition 47 reclassified stealing items under $950 as a misdemeanor while preserving criminal penalties. Furthermore, assertions linking store closures strictly to retail theft inaccurately attribute broader economic shifts and national downsizings to state policy. 

California has experienced notable retail adjustments, including regional and national chain downsizings (such as select Walgreens, CVS, and Grocery Outlet closures), alongside corporate bankruptcies affecting chains like 99 Cents Only Stores and Rite Aid. While hundreds of individual storefronts close annually due to shifts toward e-commerce, rising operating costs, and changing consumer habits—like regional icons O’Brien’s Markets in Modesto—the total numbers  reflect local economic pressures and competition from e-commerce giants rather than a mass systemic wipeout of the state’s entire retail sector.

A new controversial California bill aiming to create diversion programs for low-level retail thefts framed as “crimes of necessity” was recently defeated in committee. 

Authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, AB 2108 sought to establish a statewide diversion framework for non-violent, low-level retail theft and vandalism. Proponents argued that people driven by extreme poverty to steal basic survival items lack a formalized off-ramp or diversion structure similar to existing programs for drug offenses or mental health struggles. Under the bill, completing a treatment or support program could lead to the dismissal of charges. Following intense public pushback and opposition from law enforcement groups and district attorneys, the bill stalled and died in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file. 

A “necessity defense” has long existed under California common law and jury instructions. It is a strict affirmative defense requiring proof that a person faced an immediate, emergency threat of severe harm and had no other legal alternative. It did not, and does not, broadly legalize routine or planned shoplifting. 

The bill arrived on the heels of the passage of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for repeat theft and drug crimes. Critics of AB 2108, including retail associations and legislative opponents, argued the measure undermined voter intent by softening consequences for property offenses, while proponents maintained it was a narrow effort to address the root causes of poverty-driven desperation. 

https://youtu.be/4jxKqLOulrk