A California state assemblywoman has ignited a firestorm of criticism after defending retail theft as a justifiable response to poverty, arguing that prosecuting shoplifters amounts to prioritizing corporate profits over people with “biological needs.”
In remarks captured on video that quickly went viral, the lawmaker described shoplifting basic items like toothpaste and soap as evidence of genuine need rather than criminal behavior. “We saw our times of poverty. People who are stealing things like toothpaste. People who are stealing things like, you know, a cell,” she said. “And that means that you’re stealing those things. You need them. And we are choosing to protect million dollar companies like CBS and Walgreens over the people who are struggling to get by.”
🚨 WTF?! New York socialists are moving to legalize THEFT if it's for "biological need"
Socialist whale NY Assemblywoman: "Crimes of poverty. Stealing toothpaste, soap. That means you need them. We are choosing to protect billion dollar companies like CVS and Walgreens over the… pic.twitter.com/eVH8BfUWsK
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 17, 2026
The assemblywoman went further, framing wealth inequality itself as the true crime. “So I would say that the true crime is that there is such incredible wealth disparity in this city that there are people who can be thrown in jail simply for having a biological need,” she stated.
The comments represent a striking departure from traditional law enforcement principles that treat theft as a violation regardless of motive. By elevating personal hardship as a legal defense for taking goods without payment, the argument shifts focus from individual responsibility to systemic grievances. Critics warn this approach erodes accountability and normalizes criminal behavior under the guise of social justice.
California has already experienced the consequences of policies that decriminalize low-level offenses. Proposition 47, passed in 2014, reclassified theft of goods valued under $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor. The measure was sold to voters as criminal justice reform but has been widely blamed for an explosion in retail theft that has devastated businesses across the state.
Major pharmacy chains including CVS and Walgreens have closed dozens of locations in California cities, citing rampant shoplifting that makes stores unprofitable. In San Francisco alone, Walgreens shuttered 17 locations between 2016 and 2021. Target has locked up basic necessities behind plexiglass in many stores, turning routine shopping into an obstacle course that requires staff assistance for items as simple as deodorant or razor blades.
These closures disproportionately harm the low-income communities the assemblywoman claims to champion. When pharmacies leave neighborhoods, residents lose access to prescription medications, over-the-counter health products, and basic household goods. Elderly residents and those without transportation face the greatest hardship, forced to travel farther for essentials or pay higher prices at remaining stores that pass security costs onto consumers.
Retail industry groups report that organized theft rings have exploited California’s lenient enforcement climate. Professional shoplifters, often working in coordinated crews, systematically strip shelves of high-value items for resale online or in underground markets. This is not desperate parents stealing baby formula. It is criminal enterprise operating with minimal fear of prosecution.
The National Retail Federation estimates organized retail crime costs businesses $700,000 per every $1 billion in sales. Those losses translate directly to higher prices for honest customers and reduced employment as stores cut staff or close entirely. Small businesses without the resources of national chains suffer even more, with many mom-and-pop shops driven out of business by repeat theft they cannot absorb.
The assemblywoman’s framing of theft as a “biological need” stretches the concept beyond recognition. Hunger and shelter are biological needs. Toothpaste, while important for hygiene, does not meet the threshold of survival necessity that would justify taking another person’s property without consent. Her argument collapses the distinction between genuine emergency and ordinary want, a distinction that civilized society depends upon to function.
Moreover, the claim ignores the extensive social safety net already available in California. The state operates numerous programs providing food assistance, healthcare access, housing support, and cash benefits to low-income residents. Community organizations and churches offer additional help with basic necessities. Stealing from retail stores is not the only option for those facing hardship, contrary to the assemblywoman’s implication.
Conservative commentators blasted the remarks as emblematic of socialist policies that treat theft as social service rather than crime. The suggestion that poverty excuses lawbreaking undermines the equal application of law that protects everyone’s property rights, regardless of economic status. If theft is acceptable when the thief is poor and the victim is wealthy, the principle of private property dissolves into arbitrary redistribution based on need claims that anyone can make.
The assemblywoman’s position also ignores the human cost of retail crime. Store employees face daily threats and occasional violence from shoplifters who grow aggressive when confronted. Workers in high-theft locations report constant stress and fear for their safety. Some have been assaulted or threatened with weapons by thieves who see no consequences for their actions.
Prosecutors in California counties including Los Angeles and San Francisco have already adopted policies declining to file charges for many theft cases, even when suspects are caught red-handed. District attorneys aligned with progressive criminal justice reform argue that prosecution for low-level property crimes creates unnecessary incarceration and burdens on poor communities. The result has been a revolving door where the same individuals are arrested and released repeatedly, sometimes multiple times in a single day.
Business owners describe the frustration of calling police to report theft only to watch officers decline to respond or arrive but make no arrest because they know prosecutors will not file charges. This breakdown in enforcement sends a clear message that theft carries no real penalty, encouraging more of the same behavior.
The assemblywoman’s comments suggest she views this collapse of law enforcement as a feature rather than a bug. By redefining theft as a response to “biological need” and wealth disparity, she provides ideological cover for policies that have already proven disastrous for California communities. Her remarks elevate abstract concerns about inequality over the concrete harm suffered by store owners, employees, and customers dealing with the daily reality of unchecked theft.
Critics pointed out the absurdity of a government official effectively endorsing criminal behavior while drawing a taxpayer-funded salary and benefits. The irony of a well-compensated assemblywoman lecturing others about wealth disparity while defending theft was not lost on observers. California state legislators earn $128,215 annually plus generous per diem allowances and benefits, placing them well above the median household income of the constituents they represent.
The controversy highlights a fundamental divide in American politics over the nature of law and personal responsibility. Traditional conservative principles hold that laws against theft protect everyone by securing property rights and maintaining social order. Poverty may explain crime but does not excuse it, and compassion for the struggling should manifest through charity and assistance programs, not through tolerance of lawbreaking that harms others.
The progressive view increasingly treats crime as a symptom of systemic injustice that cannot be addressed through traditional prosecution. This framework sees criminals as victims of larger forces beyond their control and views punishment as compounding rather than correcting injustice. The assemblywoman’s remarks represent this ideology in its purest form, declaring that the true crime is not theft itself but the economic conditions that allegedly make theft necessary.
As California continues to grapple with retail theft that has reached crisis levels in many communities, elected officials face a choice. They can continue down the path of decriminalization and tolerance that has devastated businesses and driven them from the state, or they can restore meaningful consequences for theft regardless of the perpetrator’s economic status. The assemblywoman has made clear which side she stands on, and voters will have the opportunity to respond accordingly.