36 ms·

Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession of Marijuana

787 points by 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
It’s about time. Interesting articles if you search for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cannabis+poses+quandary https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cannabis+poses+quandary
- titfortat 4y ago
  It's actually much too little far too late, we should not be praising any effort that falls short of full federal legalization.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    I disagree, I believe that we should reward, positively, the behaviors that we would like to see from the government, such as simple proclamations such as this. edit: tit for tat, as your username promotes
  - vlan0 4y ago
    I agree, it's not what we'd like to see. But It does not have to be binary. We must celebrate all wins, no matter how small.
  - tssva 4y ago
    The President doesn't have the power to legalize marijuana by proclamation. He has ordered the DEA, FDA and HHS to review the classification of marijuana under the notice and comment rulemaking process defined in the Controlled Substances Act. That is the limit of what he can do under the CSA.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      These agencies can say cannabis has medical benefits and reschedule it just as easily as they decided to make it schedule I.
      - pvarangot 4y ago
        Weed is scheduled by Congress, the agencies can only add substances to the schedules temporarily for "public health reasons" and there's some weed derived stuff or analogues that have been added that way but marihuana in and of itself is illegal because congress passed a law saying it's illegal: the CSA, 21 U.S. Code § 812 (c) The CSA allows for schedules to be updated and republished annually but agencies can only recommend, the authority to remove something that's scheduled by Congress is only held by Congress.
        infamouscow 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
        pvarangot 4y ago
        That's wrong, the CSA allows for the executive to temporarily change schedules and only for a matter of safety. The spirit of that part of the law is actually adding more substances and not removing substances that are on the law.
        chatterhead 4y ago
        This is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
        infamouscow 4y ago
        Treaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated. Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA. Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
  - aschearer 4y ago
    Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a time when one political party's leading candidates deny we hold fair elections this is huge. Would said political party do even this much? Unlikely.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> My intent by this proclamation is to pardon only the offense of simple possession of marijuana in violation of Federal law or in violation of D.C. Code 48–904.01(d)(1), and not any other offenses related to marijuana or other controlled substances.
- anonym29 4y ago
  This is a great step in the right direction. Hopefully this is laying the groundwork for federal decriminalization.
  - hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
    >[Biden] will also ask the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the attorney general to review how the drug is scheduled under current federal law. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decriminalization_n_633f24c9e4b08e0e6076b875 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decri...
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      Good luck; it's scheduled under US Treaty with the UN and governed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. >>"The CND is mandated to decide on the scope of control of substances under the three international drug control conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988 Conventions)." https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html
      - rippercushions 4y ago
        The US was the main driver behind those treaties. Amending, formally pulling out or just straight up ignoring them is mildly embarrassing, but in no way a showstopper.
        chatterhead 4y ago
willcipriano 4y ago
Is this on going? If someone gets arrested tomorrow can they apply for a pardon and be set free?
- metacritic12 4y ago
  No. It clearly states there this is only for offenses today or before.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Missed that bit.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Most arrests are for state charges, not federal. Presidential pardons only cover federal charges.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > on or before the date of this proclamation, regardless of whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for this offense on or before the date of this proclamation
googlryas 4y ago
Can someone tell me why Obama didn't do this 10 years ago? Or even 6.
- xienze 4y ago
  He wasn’t as unpopular as Biden going into a midterm election.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    That's kind of amazing, all things considering both for Biden and Obama.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Minimal affect. Most marijuana possession charges are state, not federal, and presidential pardons don't affect state charges.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    Same as today, so that's not a compelling reason. As mentioned by someone else, Obama did make some overtures that allowed the party to feel out the base's reactions. Legalization was always going to be a process. Right now, I believe this is typical (D) politicking. I think it's likely that this is something like...Biden needs a positive press to boost for both his approval rating and visibility within his base, for the next election cycle, with a minor symbolic gesture. Obama never needed to do that.
  - rednerrus 4y ago
    If the WH's statement that this affects 6,500 people, that seems like an actual affective.
    - adolph 4y ago
      4% given a Fed prison pop of "151,283 at yearend 2020." https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-statistics-collected-under-first-step-act-2021 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-st...
pcbro141 4y ago
Note: The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession are not charged Federally. This only applies to the Federal charges specified, Biden can't do anything about the State level charges most people are charged with. Just noting for non-American readers.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  You'd be surprised at how many Americans don't understand how Presidential pardons work either.
  - citilife 4y ago
    A lot of people don't know basic civics. IMO our education system should be focused primarily understanding and respecting history, law and civics. I think the vast majority of Americans have no idea about any of the basics of the American system, which is frankly... scary.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      I don't know... Obviously anecdata, but I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that civics and history aren't going to stick any better than any other subject until critical thinking has first been taught.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        > I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there. When you (plural) are making 6-figures a year, living in some high class inner suburb, working for some employer who has tons of money sloshing around, you don't need to be good at playing the game because you can just pay your way. Poor communities need to actually be good at playing the game in order to be heard.
ortusdux 4y ago
> More than 6,500 individuals with prior convictions for simple marijuana possession were impacted by the pardons, a White House official said, and thousands more through pardons under D.C. law. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/biden-to-pardon-all-prior-federal-offenses-of-simple-marijuana-possession-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/biden-to-pardon-all-prior-fe...
- squigs25 4y ago
  To be clear, 6,500 is the number of individuals receiving a pardon. The percentage of these 6,500 who will be released from prison? Zero - none of these individuals are currently in prison solely for possession of marijuana: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/07/pardon-marijuana-possession-decriminalization/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/07/...
mmastrac 4y ago
Would this mean that cannabis is effectively legal in DC?
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  Not at this time. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113698 for discussion about next steps delineated by the government.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  No, this only applies to possession until and including today. If you are caught in possession of marijuana tomorrow, you can go to jail for this exact same offense.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    Yes, for going forward we need legislation - which is the other part of the proclamation - that HHS Beccera will be driving policy changes that will likely require congress.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
Note this applies only to citizens and lawful permanent residents. I’m not sure if there’s an underlying constitutional limitation or if it’s arbitrary, but (IANAL) it seems arbitrary as the cited section has no such limitation. I welcome any progress towards decriminalization and legalization, but I think it’s important always to be aware when and how the progress is limited.
- nextstep 4y ago
  I saw that too. What’s the justification for such a carve out?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Avoiding allegations of 'rolling out the welcome mat for illegals' in GOP campaign commercials.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      This is exactly what it is and it’s strategically stupid because they’ll campaign on that anyway. Might as well do the moral thing and at least not alienate those of us who care if you do the moral thing.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  I cam to comment on that portion too. It confuses me that those people weren't simply extradited? Albeit in the obvious cases where it will be a futile catch and release. But I would think those people have massive charges (conspiracy) vs simple possession.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    I don’t know which “those people” you refer to but I don’t share your views of any subset of people and that was my point. I want everyone who could benefit under relevant jurisdiction to benefit from this pardon. I don’t want anyone extradited, I don’t have any expectation that people without permanent resident status are charged with conspiracy or otherwise predisposed to some exemption from this.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
IANL: How many would this be? Considering 21 U.S.C. 844 applies to federal jurisdiction, this would be those simple possession convictions at military bases, immigration/airports checkpoints, federal facilities and employees, and ? That does not sound like many people... More interestingly, I wonder how this will apply to federal contracting. IIRC, Elon smoked a join with Joe Rogan and had to submit to a year of drug tests per his contract with the federal government, visavia NASA, etc.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  It doesn't look like this deschedules marijuana, nor does it remove it as a potential dealbreaker with a security clearance
  - foobarian 4y ago
    It does look like descheduling will be looked into, which would be fantastic
  - Overtonwindow 4y ago
    That's a really good point. I wonder how it will impact those who were turned down for security clearances, maybe convicted of marijuana use in relation to government contracting, etc. Suddenly 6,500 people have opportunities. Wow. Let's say a person within that pool ONLY had a felony for marijuana possession. This pardon restores their voting rights.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  According to Business Insider[1], just 149 people. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-wont-free-many-currently-in-federal-prison-2022-10#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20States,in%20the%20fiscal%20year%202015 https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won....
  - rippercushions 4y ago
    149 people in jail right now. But thousands more will have their records wiped clean.
chasd00 4y ago
how much marijuana do you have to be in possession of to be charged at the federal level? Federal charge means it's a felony correct? It has to be a lot to be considered a felony. That charge may be pardoned but i'm sure it qualifies for intent to distribute at the state level which is a much more serious charge than possession.
- meroes 4y ago
  A tiny amount got a friend charged in a national park. Federal Park rangers. Doesn't matter if it's in a legal state.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    Park rangers tried to do this to one of my friends and he just ran. They didn’t have guns and they’re too good of a people to really pursue someone for a useless crime. He got away.
    - mmmmmbop 4y ago
      > They didn’t have guns Wait a second... How would guns have changed things? Would it have been legal for them to shoot at your friend in this scenario?
      - bergenty 4y ago
        You never know with city cops to be honest. You’ll probably atleast get tazed.
    - meroes 4y ago
      Wow that's wild! They weren't letting him off easily because someone died in the park that week and they were all on edge.
- tylersmith 4y ago
  Federal charges come from infractions in federal jurisdictions. It's not related to the severity of the crime.
Euphorbium 4y ago
There should be reparations paid. Lifes have been ruined.
- xen2xen1 4y ago
  *lives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  I don't think we're going to see that here. It is possible to issue a pardon like this without admitting to any government wrongdoing in crafting, passing, and enforcing the law in the first place. I don't think there's enough philosophical alignment in the US that criminalization of marijuana was actually wrong for a reparations balloon to float.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    Probably not whilst the sitting vice president put 1500 people in prison for marijuana violations and then laughed about when she was asked if she'd ever smoked marijuana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Lives have been ruined by cannabis usage, yes. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-cannabis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-canna...
  - the_only_law 4y ago
shadowgovt 4y ago
I was under the impression that a blanket proclamation like this wasn't enough; he still had to sign off on every pardon individually. Not sure why I thought that though.
- evanb 4y ago
  Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers via a similar blanket proclamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483. But they're relatively rare.
  - bink 4y ago
    I've read that the constitutionality of that blanket pardon was never really tested as no one wanted to challenge it.
- curiousllama 4y ago
  It was a thing in VA for a while. I the governor had to sign 200k individual orders to restore voting rights to felons. Just a quirk of VA law, though > McAuliffe, a man known for his irascibility, promised to find a way to restore voting rights anyway, using an autopen to sign individual orders for all 200,000 felons within two weeks. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virginia-felon-disenfranchisement-mcauliffe/496898/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virgini...
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Thank you; this is what I was thinking of.
etchalon 4y ago
Good.
FpUser 4y ago
Citizens and permanent residents. I wish this was extended to any person charged in the US (tourists, work permits etc).
- guywithahat 4y ago
  Those people aren't his constituents, I don't think he could order an executive order for them either way
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    Why wouldn't he legally be able to pardon them via executive order, the same as he can pardon anyone else? The president's pardon power is not restricted to citizens and permanent residents.
jmyeet 4y ago
No one is serving prison time for Federal marijuana possession charges. It is however a potential felony with all that entails (eg finding a job, renting a house, voting). So this is positive but there’s two things worth pointing out. 1. The core problem here is America’s scarlet letter system of being a felon. This forever makes you a second class citizen. This system needs to be reformed so that those who have served their time automatically get their record expunged; and 2. Let’s not forget that Biden was one of the chief architects of Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill that ushered in this era of mass incarceration and the disastrous “war on drugs”. The 1990s saw the Democratic Party hijacked by neoliberalism, which has been a disaster for working people.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > The core problem here is America’s scarlet letter system of being a felon I wish more people understood this. "Felons shouldn't get a vote" makes common sense on the surface, until one picks away the surface just a little and realizes that the easiest way to politically disenfranchise an opponent would be to gain just a little more power than them and then make something core to their identity illegal. Stripping voting rights due to a conviction for any crime is a huge incentive to wield the law as a political cudgel. (Besides, you'd think that Americans, of all people, given the way they got their country, would grok the notion that sometimes people who break the law are on the right side of history).
  - theonemind 4y ago
    I think unequal enforcement of the law makes for a huge problem generally. I think we as a society should have throwing the book at legislators as the first order of business, and they should live under heavy scrutiny and enforcement of the letter of the law first.
  - rodgerd 4y ago
    > "Felons shouldn't get a vote" makes common sense on the surface, until one picks away the surface just a little and realizes that the easiest way to politically disenfranchise an opponent would be to gain just a little more power than them and then make something core to their identity illegal. As an example, if you were - for example - a tech billionaire who is on the record as describing the 19th amendment as the end of freedom in the United States, and you wanted to make it impossible for as many women to vote as possible without actually fronting a repeal of that amendment, you could relentlessly support and fund efforts to make common healthcare procedures for women a felony.
Ancapistani 4y ago
As someone who is extremely dissatisfied with Biden in general - I 100% applaud this action. It's a huge step in the right direction and should have been done years ago.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
- bergenty 4y ago
  I was dissatisfied until about 8 months ago but he’s changed since then. If he can get some sort of voter rights law through I will have full satisfaction.
cannaceo 4y ago
Where are the pardons for non-violent cannabis offenders that were not simple possession?
tonymet 4y ago
this is more complicated than it sounds. "non violent offenders" is a myth because many offenders have their charges reduced during plea bargaining process. Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function there are dangerous side effects as experienced in California
- ausbah 4y ago
  >this is more complicated than it sounds. "non violent offenders" is a myth because many offenders have their charges reduced during plea bargaining process. something like 80-90% of ALL cases at the federal level end in plea bargains, mostly for practical reasons because the legal system literally doesn't have the capacity to handle all the charges that would be brought forward. pretending it's unique to simple marijuana procession is fearmongering >Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function there are dangerous side effects as experienced in California the US has 25% of the world's prison population and 5% of the world's population, the ONLY worthwhile moral consideration is the mass release of US prisoners. stuff like "think of the side effects" just perpetuates the stays quo via perpetual "considerations"
- rippercushions 4y ago
  Not that many people are in jail purely for simple cannabis possession. The important part here is that these people now have their criminal records wiped clean.
  - jimbobimbo 4y ago
    But that's OP's point: how many of "not that many people" were charged with possession to begin with, not pleaded down to possession?
- braingenious 4y ago
  Wait, what? There is no such thing as somebody having weed in their pocket in Yosemite National Park in a non-violent way? I love this reasoning. If there are no non-violent offenders, then every crime is violence. Considering people break laws on accident all the time, it is probably safest to simply imprison the entire population of California by default and have a tribunal of police that decide parole on a case-by-case basis.
jamesgreenleaf 4y ago
> ...a full, complete, and unconditional pardon... regardless of whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for this offense... Millions of people can now truthfully say that they've been granted a presidential pardon.
- hirvi74 4y ago
  The number is in the 4 digit range, if I am not mistaken.
  - aliqot 4y ago
    I suppose it's quite limited; in what situations would you be charged w/ simple possession federally? I'm assuming if you came through an airport with a butt or residue, and were particularly rude maybe.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      I think the joke is that the pardon is "even if not charged" so if you ever had weed in your possession and could have been charged, you've now received a presidential pardon (even if the feds never even knew of you).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - hirvi74 4y ago
        The can still charge you for it tomorrow.
        amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Only if your offense occurs after the pardon.
  - margalabargala 4y ago
    While the number of people who will be materially affected by this is in the four digits, this does technically apply to every one of the millions of people who have broken this federal law by possessing marijuana. One need not have been charged to receive a pardon.
derefr 4y ago
What's the meaning of this part? What's an example of a person filtered out by this criterion? > This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense. Is this about detaining (vs deporting) illegal immigrants?
- mitch3x3 4y ago
  A very large percentage of federal possession cases are drug smuggling at border crossings. This amendment is to keep those people locked up since their initial charge of “possession” was chosen over illegal border crossing or whatever else since it was probably a) easier to prosecute, and b) carried a harsher sentence
- lukas099 4y ago
  Maybe meant to exclude drug traffickers/cartel folks who could only be charged with simple possession for reasons.
- ntr-- 4y ago
  It means > Don't fuckin' come here and ignore the rules
- rolph 4y ago
  non citizen not lawfully present, to me means someone that snuck over, or talked thier way over lying about thier intentions. I get an impression from that verbiage there would be such a class as non citizen >lawfully present< at the time of offense, that would qualify.
ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
>all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who committed the offense of simple possession of marijuana >This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense. What about non-citizens lawfully present but not permanent residents, such as tourists and short-term visa holders?
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  The order at the top says it only applies to current US citizens and lawful permanent residents. So even if they were a lawful permanent resident at the time of their offense, if they aren't anymore at this time (and getting convicted is probably enough to have their visa's revoked), no, it doesn't apply to them. @kragen pointed this out in another comment. Let alone someone who was never a lawful permanent resident, nope, not pardoned.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    My point was regarding lawful temporary residents.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      Right, the order does not say it applies to them, so it does not.
      - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
        Thanks, Captain Obvious. My point was that it was a curious omission.
        jrochkind1 4y ago
        Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what if anything you were asking about, or misinterpreted the question mark on the end of your comment. The first sentance of the order says it only applies to current citizens or permanent residents. I guess if you were a visa holder at time of offense and had somehow become a citizen or lawful permanent resident since then (which would be hard to do with such an offense), it would apply to you...
jkaplowitz 4y ago
The scope of this proclamation is really weird. It applies only to people who are currently US citizens or lawful permanent residents, minus any who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the US at the time of their offense. To give two examples of how weird this scope is: (1) If someone was convicted of the offense a few years ago when they were a US citizen but has since moved abroad and renounced their US citizenship, the renunciation would prevent this pardon from applying to them. But, (2) if someone committed the offense while overstaying tourist status and had that all waived and forgiven for immigration purposes through the options that are available when marrying a US citizen, the criminal record would remain unpardoned even if they are now a citizen. Do we know why Biden set these parameters, and if there's a chance it might get broadened to more reasonable boundaries?
- jen20 4y ago
  I suspect that anyone who had overstayed a tourist visa would not have been able to become a citizen anyway in case 2.
  - niij 4y ago
    The law does allow for adjustment of status to Permanent Residency (and subsequently citizenship) for Immediate Family members of US Citizens/PR. IANAL
    - jkaplowitz 4y ago
      Immediate family of US citizens only, not of PRs.
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    There are exceptions to that, especially for immediate family of US citizens.
- gedy 4y ago
  As others stated it's to avoid letting smugglers free who were likely working for Mexican cartels. In many cases they were only able to be charged with possession.
dundarious 4y ago
A positive development, but quite funny considering staffers were let go based on confessing to past use in a background check. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/politics/biden-white-house-staff-marijuana/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/politics/biden-white-house-st...
- bombcar 4y ago
  I can fully want someone to not see jail time and still not want them as an employee; I believe some companies even discriminate against smokers.
  - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
    If you can discriminate against smokers, which is a legal vice, can the employer discriminate on other legal vices, even taken in moderation, such as alcohol or caffeine, in a legal capacity? I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer and this is just a question to people who may know. I understand the smoking thing is an insurance issue.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Unless it’s a protected class you can discriminate on it, from what I understand. If they suspect that you’re using it as a stand-in for a protected class, you may be in trouble (not hiring smokers because blacks smoke, for example). There may be edge cases where something is effectively a protected class. And it may vary from state to state.
    - pocket_cheese 4y ago
      I dabble in adult content creation and could absolutely get fired for it. It's not exactly a vice though.
    - Zak 4y ago
      Some states bar or limit employers from regulating off-duty conduct by employees. Some don't. Smoking is a common one because it affects insurance costs, but the same legal theory could probably be applied to alcohol or caffeine. https://www.workplacefairness.org/off-duty-conduct https://www.workplacefairness.org/off-duty-conduct
dayvid 4y ago
If rich people were charged as much as poor people for drug charges, the war on drugs would be over tomorrow. I know so many rich people who joke about doing cocaine and other illegal substances. Even the president's son has video of him repeatedly smoking crack cocaine and no charges are put against him (https://time.com/5952773/hunter-biden-memoir-beautiful-things/ https://time.com/5952773/hunter-biden-memoir-beautiful-thing...). George W Bush allegedly did cocaine and no one cared: (https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/800a1BushCocaine.pdf https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/800a1BushCocaine.pdf) There's not many other laws where rules are applied so unevenly as drug charges. It just becomes a freebie police can use to arrest someone they don't like.
- quantified 4y ago
  When Madison Cawthorne outed his peers recently as doing drugs, the problem was his outing, not the drugs. Let's be real, as long as the productive citizens remain productive, their drug use by and large really isn't a problem.
  - tsol 4y ago
    >When Madison Cawthorne outed his peers recently as doing drugs, the problem was his outing, not the drugs. Do you mean that literally? Whether they're productive or not, it's in the publics interest to know if their representatives are doing cocaine or other drugs. I think that's completely relevant, it affects the thought processes of most regular cocaine users I've known.
- cwkoss 4y ago
  Yeah, it's pretty wild how brazen Hunter Biden has been, with essentially zero scrutiny from the liberal media. My meta-tinfoil hat theory is that stories of his depravity have been intentionally shared by dem insiders to conservative channels to mitigate the national security risk of someone extorting Joe - can't blackmail if the info is already public.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
kragen 4y ago
Interestingly, he specifically excludes illegal immigrants who are not US citizens from the pardon, as well as (implicitly) people who used to be lawful permanent residents but no longer are (perhaps because their visa got revoked after being arrested for possessing marijuana), as well as former US citizens (if there are any who have been charged with this "crime") and people who were never residents in the US at all (perhaps they got arrested when they changed flights at a US airport). So this is a step in the right direction, but not nearly far enough. I wonder why he went to the trouble of making all those exclusions.
- notch656a 4y ago
  It's obvious. They want to make sure those people are ineligible (or a least seriously impeded) for a visa, green card, or citizenship. Very few offenses can absolutely torpedo immigration to the US as much as drug possession/offenses. The US is a relatively 'free' country in many areas but they have a shockingly dystopian immigration and DHS, with border security that many travelers characterize as one of the most brutal in the world. Even as a US citizen with clean record I am subject to invasive (cavity) searches, cuffing/throwing in a cell, questioning, threats that I'll not be allowed in the country etc when I deal with CBP/DHS. If you have a marijuana offense as an immigrant you are utterly fucked, and those in power would like to keep it that way.
  - kragen 4y ago
    Lacking your perspective, that thought hadn't even occurred to me.
  - bink 4y ago
    IANAL but AFAIK a US Citizen cannot be denied entry to the US under any circumstances. They can detain you, search you, seize property, and charge you with any relevant crimes... but they can't simply deny entry.
    - kragen 4y ago
      That is what the law says, but government officials, including Border Patrol officers, sometimes do break the law.
adamrezich 4y ago
despite sounding sarcastically exasperated, this is a legitimate question asked sincerely: when exactly, in the history of Modern Democracy, did the electorate start completely accepting token gestures and empty promises in place of actual, tangible progress enacted by their elected officials?
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  since the start, do you want examples?
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    if that truly is the case, then doesn't it seem odd that we're still going through the motions, still, in the Internet Age? why would dozens of people in this very thread continue to openly applaud actions that they are fully aware are mere gestures and nothing but, as (they also well know) is and has always been just par for the course, out in the open for all to see? not only is it pathetic beyond reason, but it goes to show just how shallow and "actually just all in our heads" 99% of "politics" is. did any of the supposed doom and gloom that the previous President was supposed to be the harbinger of ever come to fruition? where were the conversion therapy concentration camps? where were the existential threats to Women and Science that necessitated political marches opposing such looming threats? or the President before that one, the First Black President. what did he end up doing for Black America, after eight years in office? are we supposed to look back on him fondly for all that he did for Black Americans, by virtue of getting elected President while Being Black, alone? is that really the level of gesture-accepting we're at, as a nation? as a species? https://twitter.com/i/status/1576916509766451200 https://twitter.com/i/status/1576916509766451200 it's almost as though almost (but not quite) 100% of contemporary "politics" exists solely within the confines of our skulls, transmitted via media disseminated through news organizations complicit in the perpetuation of an ongoing political regime, where the role of the citizen electorate is to play along with the professional wrestling-tier storylines presented to them, at face value, because they've established themselves as Authoritative Sources on The News, which gives them free reign to emotionally manipulate said citizen electorate at a mass scale—especially through the use of the absurdly powerful emotion of fear. if this is the case, why do we continue to play along with it, or at the very least consider it actively virtuous to play along with it? the house is burning but "this is fine"? how did it get to this?
throwaway787544 4y ago
Georgelemental 4y ago
Our laws on marijuana are too strict, as there are a few legitimate medical uses, but cannabis remains a dangerous drug—and it's getting more so as producers breed plants with higher and higher THC content. https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103671/ https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence...
- deergomoo 4y ago
  You know how you combat increasingly high THC content? A legal and regulated market.
nextstep 4y ago
This will affect only 6000 people who were not imprisoned for marijuana use/possession.
dragonwriter 4y ago
Note: the pardon potentially isn’t really the big news, directing DOJ and HHS to reexamine the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act is potentially a much bigger deal going forward.
- bsimpson 4y ago
  I'm curious if this will snowball into a more informed classification system. It seems pretty clear that psychedelics and entactogens (LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, 2-CB, etc.) have totally different characteristics than "these will ruin your life" drugs like heroin and fentanyl. A sensible drug policy would recognize those differences. I've never been a fan of drug control, but the scheduling system is particularly absurd. Drugs that are widely consumed without negative connotations for society shouldn't be cause for imprisoning people.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    As others have noted, formal drug scheduling is a requirement of our foreign obligations.
    - webinvest 4y ago
      Which foreign obligation requirements?
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33115427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33115427
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    I totally agree, but a "sensible drug policy" would also point out the complete arbitrariness of our society's relation to drugs in general. A couple years ago some researchers in the UK basically did a "harmfulness" rating for tons of drugs, looking at things like potential for addiction, negative health consequences, etc. By far the most harmful drug was alcohol. I might be confabulating, but IIRC some government officials in the UK even asked some of the researchers to downplay some of their findings, because it basically showed the ridiculousness of government drug policy. Regardless, though, the details of the report itself are worth a read, as I think they fairly assessed harm across different criteria, e.g. harm to oneself vs. harm to others. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
socialismisok 4y ago
This is a great start. Being in prison for possession is unconscionable. Hopefully it gets moved down the schedule too.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
It’s time for prohibition to end.
readams 4y ago
This action has one major thing going for it that many executive actions lately have not had: it's actually legal for the President to do this.
danuker 4y ago
A drug-related pardon I'd like to see: Ross Ulbricht. His sentence "sends a message" to me that there is no justice anymore. Same with Assange. There is no press anymore, just political mouthpieces.
morpheos137 4y ago
How is it legal for a President to pardon all instances of an offense as opposed to pardoning individuals? It seems to me this would violate separation of powers since the president is effectively repealing a law, something that should be up to congress.
- etchalon 4y ago
  Because the President has unilateral pardoning powers. If Congress doesn't like it, they can impeach him.
- niij 4y ago
  Pardons can not apply to _future_ crimes. So it only affects those currently convicted. People can still be charged/convicted of the same crime moving forward.
ROTMetro 4y ago
I met 2 guys while in prison that got hit on this. They worked in Federal Parks summer programs as teens and got busted with pot. Ruined their whole lives. They became repeat offenders because in their minds why not, they were never going to get a good job, never going to get ahead.
WesternWind 4y ago
So some people are upset that this happening in an election season, even though they support it? This was a lawful and thoughtful exercise of presidential power that helps some people convicted of something that really shouldn't be criminalized. It could also potentially help the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. But if you believe in what the Democratic Party is trying to do for the country, that's not a bad thing. There's no corruption in doing popular things that can help get people in your party elected. That's just good governance and acting according to the will of the voters. The majority of people in the US, 60%, and even a plurality of Republicans support decriminalizing recreational cannabis federally. The support for medicinal cannabis, possible if Cannabis wasn't scheduled as it currently is, is even higher. Recreational: https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/22/10/29166025/new-poll-majority-of-u-s-voters-support-federal-marijuana-legalization-again-but-do-politicians- https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/22/10/29166025/new... Medical: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-04/Cannabis%20Topline%202022.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
- rayiner 4y ago
  This. I think marijuana should be illegal (but at the state level) but this seems to me like a smart move politically. Doing popular things to get votes is a good thing. That’s kind of the whole theory of democracy.
  - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
    Why should it be illegal? I can just order stuff online here, and get some gummies delivered. Doesn’t bother anybody.
    - dbrueck 4y ago
      > Why should it be illegal? For the same reasons any other substance is regulated, because it can affect other people, see e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/newsroom/feature/marijuana-and-driving.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/newsroom/feature/marijuana-and-dri....
LastTrain 4y ago
Feels like a Reddit comment section. Moving on.
etchalon 4y ago
How is this a controversial move? How are people upset about this? Are there still people out there that believe Marijuana is somehow more dangerous than alcohol? Are there people out there so absolutely partisan than correcting obvious injustices is a bad thing cause the wrong team did it?
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Because this is pandering. Nothing more nothing less. He isn't defunding DEA and firing the agents there for one.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    He can't do those things. That's not how anything works.
gorgoiler 4y ago
If 48.2 million are breaking a law, it’s probably the law that’s wrong. https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm But then cocaine use is in the double digit millions as well. Drug use feels like a public health issue but drug supply is a law and order issue. Would decriminalizing the supply chain help much more than trying to enforce prohibition?
- seandoe 4y ago
  Yes. Plain and simple. Go even further and legalize. Decriminalizing doesn't solve the many issues that trafficking brings. This is low hanging fruit. Harder drugs would need to be tightly controlled but revenue could be spent on helping users... rehab facilities, safe use facilities, counseling, etc. Same thing with prostitution. Human trafficking could be significantly reduced by legalizing prostitution. Government should not be involved in policing morals.
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    Morally (as opposed to politically) the theory is as follows: society forbids people from selling their body — sex, organs, wombs — to nullify any marketplace where an evil person with money can exploit someone else who desperately needs money. This sucks for the people who aren’t in desperate need for the money and instead have made a lifestyle choice to sell their kidneys / intimacy / children but the state can’t reasonably decide who does and does not need protection from exploitation at the point of use, so they either over-protect everyone or under-protect no one. That’s the moral choice here — how much freedom are we willing to relinquish in order to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. It’s not about whether we consider the exploited act to be moral or not, at least from a rational point of view.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      This argument was used against alcohol in the early 1900s, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine. According to them, US alcohol prohibition was lobbied for, in some part, by the left, because they saw it as exploitation. We saw how that turned out. The same thing happened in Russia, where the Bolsheviks banned alcohol for a period, under the same justification. If a policy is known to lead to bad outcomes, it is not a moral policy, no matter the theory behind it. The left has started to realize this. That's why they now advocate for decriminalization, public health campaigns, and mental health support.
fastball 4y ago
Not gonna lie, I thought Obama or Trump or someone had already done this. Had this previously been discussed under a different presidency and not gone through? Was I thinking of a similar blanket pardon but not exactly the same? Was I dreaming?
londgine 4y ago
I guess prosecutors won't be as willing to offer a possession plea deal to people caught running an illegal trafficking operation. AFAIK, most of the people in jail for possession, are there due to a plea deal after being caught for something much worse.
thom_ 4y ago
rkagerer 4y ago
How often do presidents issue blanket pardons like this? Has he effectively overturned a law established by elected legislators, and how does that reconcile with separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch? Why'd he exclude visitors/tourists (and would equivalent state pardons issued by governors)?
- rkagerer 4y ago
  Note: Presidents can't issue pardons for future offenses (although a pardon can be issued for an offense that has not yet been charged).

787 points by 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

It’s about time. Interesting articles if you search for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cannabis+poses+quandary https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cannabis+poses+quandary

titfortat 4y ago
It's actually much too little far too late, we should not be praising any effort that falls short of full federal legalization.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  I disagree, I believe that we should reward, positively, the behaviors that we would like to see from the government, such as simple proclamations such as this. edit: tit for tat, as your username promotes
- vlan0 4y ago
  I agree, it's not what we'd like to see. But It does not have to be binary. We must celebrate all wins, no matter how small.
- tssva 4y ago
  The President doesn't have the power to legalize marijuana by proclamation. He has ordered the DEA, FDA and HHS to review the classification of marijuana under the notice and comment rulemaking process defined in the Controlled Substances Act. That is the limit of what he can do under the CSA.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    These agencies can say cannabis has medical benefits and reschedule it just as easily as they decided to make it schedule I.
    - pvarangot 4y ago
      Weed is scheduled by Congress, the agencies can only add substances to the schedules temporarily for "public health reasons" and there's some weed derived stuff or analogues that have been added that way but marihuana in and of itself is illegal because congress passed a law saying it's illegal: the CSA, 21 U.S. Code § 812 (c) The CSA allows for schedules to be updated and republished annually but agencies can only recommend, the authority to remove something that's scheduled by Congress is only held by Congress.
      - infamouscow 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
        pvarangot 4y ago
        That's wrong, the CSA allows for the executive to temporarily change schedules and only for a matter of safety. The spirit of that part of the law is actually adding more substances and not removing substances that are on the law.
        chatterhead 4y ago
        This is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
        infamouscow 4y ago
        Treaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated. Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA. Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
- aschearer 4y ago
  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a time when one political party's leading candidates deny we hold fair elections this is huge. Would said political party do even this much? Unlikely.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

> My intent by this proclamation is to pardon only the offense of simple possession of marijuana in violation of Federal law or in violation of D.C. Code 48–904.01(d)(1), and not any other offenses related to marijuana or other controlled substances.

anonym29 4y ago
This is a great step in the right direction. Hopefully this is laying the groundwork for federal decriminalization.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
  >[Biden] will also ask the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the attorney general to review how the drug is scheduled under current federal law. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decriminalization_n_633f24c9e4b08e0e6076b875 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decri...
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    Good luck; it's scheduled under US Treaty with the UN and governed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. >>"The CND is mandated to decide on the scope of control of substances under the three international drug control conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988 Conventions)." https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html
    - rippercushions 4y ago
      The US was the main driver behind those treaties. Amending, formally pulling out or just straight up ignoring them is mildly embarrassing, but in no way a showstopper.
      - chatterhead 4y ago

willcipriano 4y ago

Is this on going? If someone gets arrested tomorrow can they apply for a pardon and be set free?

metacritic12 4y ago
No. It clearly states there this is only for offenses today or before.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Missed that bit.
bdcravens 4y ago
Most arrests are for state charges, not federal. Presidential pardons only cover federal charges.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> on or before the date of this proclamation, regardless of whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for this offense on or before the date of this proclamation

googlryas 4y ago

Can someone tell me why Obama didn't do this 10 years ago? Or even 6.

xienze 4y ago
He wasn’t as unpopular as Biden going into a midterm election.
- r00fus 4y ago
  That's kind of amazing, all things considering both for Biden and Obama.
bdcravens 4y ago
Minimal affect. Most marijuana possession charges are state, not federal, and presidential pardons don't affect state charges.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  Same as today, so that's not a compelling reason. As mentioned by someone else, Obama did make some overtures that allowed the party to feel out the base's reactions. Legalization was always going to be a process. Right now, I believe this is typical (D) politicking. I think it's likely that this is something like...Biden needs a positive press to boost for both his approval rating and visibility within his base, for the next election cycle, with a minor symbolic gesture. Obama never needed to do that.
- rednerrus 4y ago
  If the WH's statement that this affects 6,500 people, that seems like an actual affective.
  - adolph 4y ago
    4% given a Fed prison pop of "151,283 at yearend 2020." https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-statistics-collected-under-first-step-act-2021 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-st...

pcbro141 4y ago

Note: The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession are not charged Federally. This only applies to the Federal charges specified, Biden can't do anything about the State level charges most people are charged with. Just noting for non-American readers.

bdcravens 4y ago
You'd be surprised at how many Americans don't understand how Presidential pardons work either.
- citilife 4y ago
  A lot of people don't know basic civics. IMO our education system should be focused primarily understanding and respecting history, law and civics. I think the vast majority of Americans have no idea about any of the basics of the American system, which is frankly... scary.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    I don't know... Obviously anecdata, but I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that civics and history aren't going to stick any better than any other subject until critical thinking has first been taught.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      > I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there. When you (plural) are making 6-figures a year, living in some high class inner suburb, working for some employer who has tons of money sloshing around, you don't need to be good at playing the game because you can just pay your way. Poor communities need to actually be good at playing the game in order to be heard.

ortusdux 4y ago

> More than 6,500 individuals with prior convictions for simple marijuana possession were impacted by the pardons, a White House official said, and thousands more through pardons under D.C. law. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/biden-to-pardon-all-prior-federal-offenses-of-simple-marijuana-possession-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/biden-to-pardon-all-prior-fe...

squigs25 4y ago
To be clear, 6,500 is the number of individuals receiving a pardon. The percentage of these 6,500 who will be released from prison? Zero - none of these individuals are currently in prison solely for possession of marijuana: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/07/pardon-marijuana-possession-decriminalization/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/07/...

mmastrac 4y ago

Would this mean that cannabis is effectively legal in DC?

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
Not at this time. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113698 for discussion about next steps delineated by the government.
tsimionescu 4y ago
No, this only applies to possession until and including today. If you are caught in possession of marijuana tomorrow, you can go to jail for this exact same offense.
- r00fus 4y ago
  Yes, for going forward we need legislation - which is the other part of the proclamation - that HHS Beccera will be driving policy changes that will likely require congress.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

Note this applies only to citizens and lawful permanent residents. I’m not sure if there’s an underlying constitutional limitation or if it’s arbitrary, but (IANAL) it seems arbitrary as the cited section has no such limitation. I welcome any progress towards decriminalization and legalization, but I think it’s important always to be aware when and how the progress is limited.

nextstep 4y ago
I saw that too. What’s the justification for such a carve out?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Avoiding allegations of 'rolling out the welcome mat for illegals' in GOP campaign commercials.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    This is exactly what it is and it’s strategically stupid because they’ll campaign on that anyway. Might as well do the moral thing and at least not alienate those of us who care if you do the moral thing.
maerF0x0 4y ago
I cam to comment on that portion too. It confuses me that those people weren't simply extradited? Albeit in the obvious cases where it will be a futile catch and release. But I would think those people have massive charges (conspiracy) vs simple possession.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  I don’t know which “those people” you refer to but I don’t share your views of any subset of people and that was my point. I want everyone who could benefit under relevant jurisdiction to benefit from this pardon. I don’t want anyone extradited, I don’t have any expectation that people without permanent resident status are charged with conspiracy or otherwise predisposed to some exemption from this.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

IANL: How many would this be? Considering 21 U.S.C. 844 applies to federal jurisdiction, this would be those simple possession convictions at military bases, immigration/airports checkpoints, federal facilities and employees, and ? That does not sound like many people... More interestingly, I wonder how this will apply to federal contracting. IIRC, Elon smoked a join with Joe Rogan and had to submit to a year of drug tests per his contract with the federal government, visavia NASA, etc.

Rebelgecko 4y ago
It doesn't look like this deschedules marijuana, nor does it remove it as a potential dealbreaker with a security clearance
- foobarian 4y ago
  It does look like descheduling will be looked into, which would be fantastic
- Overtonwindow 4y ago
  That's a really good point. I wonder how it will impact those who were turned down for security clearances, maybe convicted of marijuana use in relation to government contracting, etc. Suddenly 6,500 people have opportunities. Wow. Let's say a person within that pool ONLY had a felony for marijuana possession. This pardon restores their voting rights.
ch4s3 4y ago
According to Business Insider[1], just 149 people. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-wont-free-many-currently-in-federal-prison-2022-10#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20States,in%20the%20fiscal%20year%202015 https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won....
- rippercushions 4y ago
  149 people in jail right now. But thousands more will have their records wiped clean.

chasd00 4y ago

how much marijuana do you have to be in possession of to be charged at the federal level? Federal charge means it's a felony correct? It has to be a lot to be considered a felony. That charge may be pardoned but i'm sure it qualifies for intent to distribute at the state level which is a much more serious charge than possession.

meroes 4y ago
A tiny amount got a friend charged in a national park. Federal Park rangers. Doesn't matter if it's in a legal state.
- bergenty 4y ago
  Park rangers tried to do this to one of my friends and he just ran. They didn’t have guns and they’re too good of a people to really pursue someone for a useless crime. He got away.
  - mmmmmbop 4y ago
    > They didn’t have guns Wait a second... How would guns have changed things? Would it have been legal for them to shoot at your friend in this scenario?
    - bergenty 4y ago
      You never know with city cops to be honest. You’ll probably atleast get tazed.
  - meroes 4y ago
    Wow that's wild! They weren't letting him off easily because someone died in the park that week and they were all on edge.
tylersmith 4y ago
Federal charges come from infractions in federal jurisdictions. It's not related to the severity of the crime.

Euphorbium 4y ago

There should be reparations paid. Lifes have been ruined.

xen2xen1 4y ago
*lives.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 4y ago
I don't think we're going to see that here. It is possible to issue a pardon like this without admitting to any government wrongdoing in crafting, passing, and enforcing the law in the first place. I don't think there's enough philosophical alignment in the US that criminalization of marijuana was actually wrong for a reparations balloon to float.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  Probably not whilst the sitting vice president put 1500 people in prison for marijuana violations and then laughed about when she was asked if she'd ever smoked marijuana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg
Georgelemental 4y ago
Lives have been ruined by cannabis usage, yes. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-cannabis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-canna...
- the_only_law 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

I was under the impression that a blanket proclamation like this wasn't enough; he still had to sign off on every pardon individually. Not sure why I thought that though.

evanb 4y ago
Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers via a similar blanket proclamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483. But they're relatively rare.
- bink 4y ago
  I've read that the constitutionality of that blanket pardon was never really tested as no one wanted to challenge it.
curiousllama 4y ago
It was a thing in VA for a while. I the governor had to sign 200k individual orders to restore voting rights to felons. Just a quirk of VA law, though > McAuliffe, a man known for his irascibility, promised to find a way to restore voting rights anyway, using an autopen to sign individual orders for all 200,000 felons within two weeks. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virginia-felon-disenfranchisement-mcauliffe/496898/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virgini...
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Thank you; this is what I was thinking of.

etchalon 4y ago

Good.

FpUser 4y ago

Citizens and permanent residents. I wish this was extended to any person charged in the US (tourists, work permits etc).

guywithahat 4y ago
Those people aren't his constituents, I don't think he could order an executive order for them either way
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  Why wouldn't he legally be able to pardon them via executive order, the same as he can pardon anyone else? The president's pardon power is not restricted to citizens and permanent residents.

jmyeet 4y ago

No one is serving prison time for Federal marijuana possession charges. It is however a potential felony with all that entails (eg finding a job, renting a house, voting). So this is positive but there’s two things worth pointing out. 1. The core problem here is America’s scarlet letter system of being a felon. This forever makes you a second class citizen. This system needs to be reformed so that those who have served their time automatically get their record expunged; and 2. Let’s not forget that Biden was one of the chief architects of Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill that ushered in this era of mass incarceration and the disastrous “war on drugs”. The 1990s saw the Democratic Party hijacked by neoliberalism, which has been a disaster for working people.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> The core problem here is America’s scarlet letter system of being a felon I wish more people understood this. "Felons shouldn't get a vote" makes common sense on the surface, until one picks away the surface just a little and realizes that the easiest way to politically disenfranchise an opponent would be to gain just a little more power than them and then make something core to their identity illegal. Stripping voting rights due to a conviction for any crime is a huge incentive to wield the law as a political cudgel. (Besides, you'd think that Americans, of all people, given the way they got their country, would grok the notion that sometimes people who break the law are on the right side of history).
- theonemind 4y ago
  I think unequal enforcement of the law makes for a huge problem generally. I think we as a society should have throwing the book at legislators as the first order of business, and they should live under heavy scrutiny and enforcement of the letter of the law first.
- rodgerd 4y ago
  > "Felons shouldn't get a vote" makes common sense on the surface, until one picks away the surface just a little and realizes that the easiest way to politically disenfranchise an opponent would be to gain just a little more power than them and then make something core to their identity illegal. As an example, if you were - for example - a tech billionaire who is on the record as describing the 19th amendment as the end of freedom in the United States, and you wanted to make it impossible for as many women to vote as possible without actually fronting a repeal of that amendment, you could relentlessly support and fund efforts to make common healthcare procedures for women a felony.

Ancapistani 4y ago

As someone who is extremely dissatisfied with Biden in general - I 100% applaud this action. It's a huge step in the right direction and should have been done years ago.

sacrosancty 4y ago
bergenty 4y ago
I was dissatisfied until about 8 months ago but he’s changed since then. If he can get some sort of voter rights law through I will have full satisfaction.

cannaceo 4y ago

Where are the pardons for non-violent cannabis offenders that were not simple possession?

tonymet 4y ago

this is more complicated than it sounds. "non violent offenders" is a myth because many offenders have their charges reduced during plea bargaining process. Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function there are dangerous side effects as experienced in California

ausbah 4y ago
>this is more complicated than it sounds. "non violent offenders" is a myth because many offenders have their charges reduced during plea bargaining process. something like 80-90% of ALL cases at the federal level end in plea bargains, mostly for practical reasons because the legal system literally doesn't have the capacity to handle all the charges that would be brought forward. pretending it's unique to simple marijuana procession is fearmongering >Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function there are dangerous side effects as experienced in California the US has 25% of the world's prison population and 5% of the world's population, the ONLY worthwhile moral consideration is the mass release of US prisoners. stuff like "think of the side effects" just perpetuates the stays quo via perpetual "considerations"
rippercushions 4y ago
Not that many people are in jail purely for simple cannabis possession. The important part here is that these people now have their criminal records wiped clean.
- jimbobimbo 4y ago
  But that's OP's point: how many of "not that many people" were charged with possession to begin with, not pleaded down to possession?
braingenious 4y ago
Wait, what? There is no such thing as somebody having weed in their pocket in Yosemite National Park in a non-violent way? I love this reasoning. If there are no non-violent offenders, then every crime is violence. Considering people break laws on accident all the time, it is probably safest to simply imprison the entire population of California by default and have a tribunal of police that decide parole on a case-by-case basis.

jamesgreenleaf 4y ago

> ...a full, complete, and unconditional pardon... regardless of whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for this offense... Millions of people can now truthfully say that they've been granted a presidential pardon.

hirvi74 4y ago
The number is in the 4 digit range, if I am not mistaken.
- aliqot 4y ago
  I suppose it's quite limited; in what situations would you be charged w/ simple possession federally? I'm assuming if you came through an airport with a butt or residue, and were particularly rude maybe.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I think the joke is that the pardon is "even if not charged" so if you ever had weed in your possession and could have been charged, you've now received a presidential pardon (even if the feds never even knew of you).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hirvi74 4y ago
      The can still charge you for it tomorrow.
      - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Only if your offense occurs after the pardon.
- margalabargala 4y ago
  While the number of people who will be materially affected by this is in the four digits, this does technically apply to every one of the millions of people who have broken this federal law by possessing marijuana. One need not have been charged to receive a pardon.

derefr 4y ago

What's the meaning of this part? What's an example of a person filtered out by this criterion? > This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense. Is this about detaining (vs deporting) illegal immigrants?

mitch3x3 4y ago
A very large percentage of federal possession cases are drug smuggling at border crossings. This amendment is to keep those people locked up since their initial charge of “possession” was chosen over illegal border crossing or whatever else since it was probably a) easier to prosecute, and b) carried a harsher sentence
lukas099 4y ago
Maybe meant to exclude drug traffickers/cartel folks who could only be charged with simple possession for reasons.
ntr-- 4y ago
It means > Don't fuckin' come here and ignore the rules
rolph 4y ago
non citizen not lawfully present, to me means someone that snuck over, or talked thier way over lying about thier intentions. I get an impression from that verbiage there would be such a class as non citizen >lawfully present< at the time of offense, that would qualify.

ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago

>all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who committed the offense of simple possession of marijuana >This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense. What about non-citizens lawfully present but not permanent residents, such as tourists and short-term visa holders?

jrochkind1 4y ago
The order at the top says it only applies to current US citizens and lawful permanent residents. So even if they were a lawful permanent resident at the time of their offense, if they aren't anymore at this time (and getting convicted is probably enough to have their visa's revoked), no, it doesn't apply to them. @kragen pointed this out in another comment. Let alone someone who was never a lawful permanent resident, nope, not pardoned.
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  My point was regarding lawful temporary residents.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    Right, the order does not say it applies to them, so it does not.
    - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
      Thanks, Captain Obvious. My point was that it was a curious omission.
      - jrochkind1 4y ago
        Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what if anything you were asking about, or misinterpreted the question mark on the end of your comment. The first sentance of the order says it only applies to current citizens or permanent residents. I guess if you were a visa holder at time of offense and had somehow become a citizen or lawful permanent resident since then (which would be hard to do with such an offense), it would apply to you...

jkaplowitz 4y ago

The scope of this proclamation is really weird. It applies only to people who are currently US citizens or lawful permanent residents, minus any who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the US at the time of their offense. To give two examples of how weird this scope is: (1) If someone was convicted of the offense a few years ago when they were a US citizen but has since moved abroad and renounced their US citizenship, the renunciation would prevent this pardon from applying to them. But, (2) if someone committed the offense while overstaying tourist status and had that all waived and forgiven for immigration purposes through the options that are available when marrying a US citizen, the criminal record would remain unpardoned even if they are now a citizen. Do we know why Biden set these parameters, and if there's a chance it might get broadened to more reasonable boundaries?

jen20 4y ago
I suspect that anyone who had overstayed a tourist visa would not have been able to become a citizen anyway in case 2.
- niij 4y ago
  The law does allow for adjustment of status to Permanent Residency (and subsequently citizenship) for Immediate Family members of US Citizens/PR. IANAL
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    Immediate family of US citizens only, not of PRs.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  There are exceptions to that, especially for immediate family of US citizens.
gedy 4y ago
As others stated it's to avoid letting smugglers free who were likely working for Mexican cartels. In many cases they were only able to be charged with possession.

dundarious 4y ago

A positive development, but quite funny considering staffers were let go based on confessing to past use in a background check. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/politics/biden-white-house-staff-marijuana/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/politics/biden-white-house-st...

bombcar 4y ago
I can fully want someone to not see jail time and still not want them as an employee; I believe some companies even discriminate against smokers.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  If you can discriminate against smokers, which is a legal vice, can the employer discriminate on other legal vices, even taken in moderation, such as alcohol or caffeine, in a legal capacity? I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer and this is just a question to people who may know. I understand the smoking thing is an insurance issue.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Unless it’s a protected class you can discriminate on it, from what I understand. If they suspect that you’re using it as a stand-in for a protected class, you may be in trouble (not hiring smokers because blacks smoke, for example). There may be edge cases where something is effectively a protected class. And it may vary from state to state.
  - pocket_cheese 4y ago
    I dabble in adult content creation and could absolutely get fired for it. It's not exactly a vice though.
  - Zak 4y ago
    Some states bar or limit employers from regulating off-duty conduct by employees. Some don't. Smoking is a common one because it affects insurance costs, but the same legal theory could probably be applied to alcohol or caffeine. https://www.workplacefairness.org/off-duty-conduct https://www.workplacefairness.org/off-duty-conduct

dayvid 4y ago

If rich people were charged as much as poor people for drug charges, the war on drugs would be over tomorrow. I know so many rich people who joke about doing cocaine and other illegal substances. Even the president's son has video of him repeatedly smoking crack cocaine and no charges are put against him (https://time.com/5952773/hunter-biden-memoir-beautiful-things/ https://time.com/5952773/hunter-biden-memoir-beautiful-thing...). George W Bush allegedly did cocaine and no one cared: (https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/800a1BushCocaine.pdf https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/800a1BushCocaine.pdf) There's not many other laws where rules are applied so unevenly as drug charges. It just becomes a freebie police can use to arrest someone they don't like.

quantified 4y ago
When Madison Cawthorne outed his peers recently as doing drugs, the problem was his outing, not the drugs. Let's be real, as long as the productive citizens remain productive, their drug use by and large really isn't a problem.
- tsol 4y ago
  >When Madison Cawthorne outed his peers recently as doing drugs, the problem was his outing, not the drugs. Do you mean that literally? Whether they're productive or not, it's in the publics interest to know if their representatives are doing cocaine or other drugs. I think that's completely relevant, it affects the thought processes of most regular cocaine users I've known.
cwkoss 4y ago
Yeah, it's pretty wild how brazen Hunter Biden has been, with essentially zero scrutiny from the liberal media. My meta-tinfoil hat theory is that stories of his depravity have been intentionally shared by dem insiders to conservative channels to mitigate the national security risk of someone extorting Joe - can't blackmail if the info is already public.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

kragen 4y ago

Interestingly, he specifically excludes illegal immigrants who are not US citizens from the pardon, as well as (implicitly) people who used to be lawful permanent residents but no longer are (perhaps because their visa got revoked after being arrested for possessing marijuana), as well as former US citizens (if there are any who have been charged with this "crime") and people who were never residents in the US at all (perhaps they got arrested when they changed flights at a US airport). So this is a step in the right direction, but not nearly far enough. I wonder why he went to the trouble of making all those exclusions.

notch656a 4y ago
It's obvious. They want to make sure those people are ineligible (or a least seriously impeded) for a visa, green card, or citizenship. Very few offenses can absolutely torpedo immigration to the US as much as drug possession/offenses. The US is a relatively 'free' country in many areas but they have a shockingly dystopian immigration and DHS, with border security that many travelers characterize as one of the most brutal in the world. Even as a US citizen with clean record I am subject to invasive (cavity) searches, cuffing/throwing in a cell, questioning, threats that I'll not be allowed in the country etc when I deal with CBP/DHS. If you have a marijuana offense as an immigrant you are utterly fucked, and those in power would like to keep it that way.
- kragen 4y ago
  Lacking your perspective, that thought hadn't even occurred to me.
- bink 4y ago
  IANAL but AFAIK a US Citizen cannot be denied entry to the US under any circumstances. They can detain you, search you, seize property, and charge you with any relevant crimes... but they can't simply deny entry.
  - kragen 4y ago
    That is what the law says, but government officials, including Border Patrol officers, sometimes do break the law.

adamrezich 4y ago

despite sounding sarcastically exasperated, this is a legitimate question asked sincerely: when exactly, in the history of Modern Democracy, did the electorate start completely accepting token gestures and empty promises in place of actual, tangible progress enacted by their elected officials?

wahnfrieden 4y ago
since the start, do you want examples?
- adamrezich 4y ago
  if that truly is the case, then doesn't it seem odd that we're still going through the motions, still, in the Internet Age? why would dozens of people in this very thread continue to openly applaud actions that they are fully aware are mere gestures and nothing but, as (they also well know) is and has always been just par for the course, out in the open for all to see? not only is it pathetic beyond reason, but it goes to show just how shallow and "actually just all in our heads" 99% of "politics" is. did any of the supposed doom and gloom that the previous President was supposed to be the harbinger of ever come to fruition? where were the conversion therapy concentration camps? where were the existential threats to Women and Science that necessitated political marches opposing such looming threats? or the President before that one, the First Black President. what did he end up doing for Black America, after eight years in office? are we supposed to look back on him fondly for all that he did for Black Americans, by virtue of getting elected President while Being Black, alone? is that really the level of gesture-accepting we're at, as a nation? as a species? https://twitter.com/i/status/1576916509766451200 https://twitter.com/i/status/1576916509766451200 it's almost as though almost (but not quite) 100% of contemporary "politics" exists solely within the confines of our skulls, transmitted via media disseminated through news organizations complicit in the perpetuation of an ongoing political regime, where the role of the citizen electorate is to play along with the professional wrestling-tier storylines presented to them, at face value, because they've established themselves as Authoritative Sources on The News, which gives them free reign to emotionally manipulate said citizen electorate at a mass scale—especially through the use of the absurdly powerful emotion of fear. if this is the case, why do we continue to play along with it, or at the very least consider it actively virtuous to play along with it? the house is burning but "this is fine"? how did it get to this?

throwaway787544 4y ago

Georgelemental 4y ago

Our laws on marijuana are too strict, as there are a few legitimate medical uses, but cannabis remains a dangerous drug—and it's getting more so as producers breed plants with higher and higher THC content. https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103671/ https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence...

deergomoo 4y ago
You know how you combat increasingly high THC content? A legal and regulated market.

nextstep 4y ago

This will affect only 6000 people who were not imprisoned for marijuana use/possession.

dragonwriter 4y ago

Note: the pardon potentially isn’t really the big news, directing DOJ and HHS to reexamine the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act is potentially a much bigger deal going forward.

bsimpson 4y ago
I'm curious if this will snowball into a more informed classification system. It seems pretty clear that psychedelics and entactogens (LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, 2-CB, etc.) have totally different characteristics than "these will ruin your life" drugs like heroin and fentanyl. A sensible drug policy would recognize those differences. I've never been a fan of drug control, but the scheduling system is particularly absurd. Drugs that are widely consumed without negative connotations for society shouldn't be cause for imprisoning people.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  As others have noted, formal drug scheduling is a requirement of our foreign obligations.
  - webinvest 4y ago
    Which foreign obligation requirements?
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33115427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33115427
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  I totally agree, but a "sensible drug policy" would also point out the complete arbitrariness of our society's relation to drugs in general. A couple years ago some researchers in the UK basically did a "harmfulness" rating for tons of drugs, looking at things like potential for addiction, negative health consequences, etc. By far the most harmful drug was alcohol. I might be confabulating, but IIRC some government officials in the UK even asked some of the researchers to downplay some of their findings, because it basically showed the ridiculousness of government drug policy. Regardless, though, the details of the report itself are worth a read, as I think they fairly assessed harm across different criteria, e.g. harm to oneself vs. harm to others. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

socialismisok 4y ago

This is a great start. Being in prison for possession is unconscionable. Hopefully it gets moved down the schedule too.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

It’s time for prohibition to end.

readams 4y ago

This action has one major thing going for it that many executive actions lately have not had: it's actually legal for the President to do this.

danuker 4y ago

A drug-related pardon I'd like to see: Ross Ulbricht. His sentence "sends a message" to me that there is no justice anymore. Same with Assange. There is no press anymore, just political mouthpieces.

morpheos137 4y ago

How is it legal for a President to pardon all instances of an offense as opposed to pardoning individuals? It seems to me this would violate separation of powers since the president is effectively repealing a law, something that should be up to congress.

etchalon 4y ago
Because the President has unilateral pardoning powers. If Congress doesn't like it, they can impeach him.
niij 4y ago
Pardons can not apply to _future_ crimes. So it only affects those currently convicted. People can still be charged/convicted of the same crime moving forward.

ROTMetro 4y ago

I met 2 guys while in prison that got hit on this. They worked in Federal Parks summer programs as teens and got busted with pot. Ruined their whole lives. They became repeat offenders because in their minds why not, they were never going to get a good job, never going to get ahead.

WesternWind 4y ago

So some people are upset that this happening in an election season, even though they support it? This was a lawful and thoughtful exercise of presidential power that helps some people convicted of something that really shouldn't be criminalized. It could also potentially help the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. But if you believe in what the Democratic Party is trying to do for the country, that's not a bad thing. There's no corruption in doing popular things that can help get people in your party elected. That's just good governance and acting according to the will of the voters. The majority of people in the US, 60%, and even a plurality of Republicans support decriminalizing recreational cannabis federally. The support for medicinal cannabis, possible if Cannabis wasn't scheduled as it currently is, is even higher. Recreational: https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/22/10/29166025/new-poll-majority-of-u-s-voters-support-federal-marijuana-legalization-again-but-do-politicians- https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/22/10/29166025/new... Medical: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-04/Cannabis%20Topline%202022.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...

rayiner 4y ago
This. I think marijuana should be illegal (but at the state level) but this seems to me like a smart move politically. Doing popular things to get votes is a good thing. That’s kind of the whole theory of democracy.
- WirelessGigabit 4y ago
  Why should it be illegal? I can just order stuff online here, and get some gummies delivered. Doesn’t bother anybody.
  - dbrueck 4y ago
    > Why should it be illegal? For the same reasons any other substance is regulated, because it can affect other people, see e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/newsroom/feature/marijuana-and-driving.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/newsroom/feature/marijuana-and-dri....

LastTrain 4y ago

Feels like a Reddit comment section. Moving on.

etchalon 4y ago

How is this a controversial move? How are people upset about this? Are there still people out there that believe Marijuana is somehow more dangerous than alcohol? Are there people out there so absolutely partisan than correcting obvious injustices is a bad thing cause the wrong team did it?

Ekaros 4y ago
Because this is pandering. Nothing more nothing less. He isn't defunding DEA and firing the agents there for one.
- etchalon 4y ago
  He can't do those things. That's not how anything works.

gorgoiler 4y ago

If 48.2 million are breaking a law, it’s probably the law that’s wrong. https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm But then cocaine use is in the double digit millions as well. Drug use feels like a public health issue but drug supply is a law and order issue. Would decriminalizing the supply chain help much more than trying to enforce prohibition?

seandoe 4y ago
Yes. Plain and simple. Go even further and legalize. Decriminalizing doesn't solve the many issues that trafficking brings. This is low hanging fruit. Harder drugs would need to be tightly controlled but revenue could be spent on helping users... rehab facilities, safe use facilities, counseling, etc. Same thing with prostitution. Human trafficking could be significantly reduced by legalizing prostitution. Government should not be involved in policing morals.
- gorgoiler 4y ago
  Morally (as opposed to politically) the theory is as follows: society forbids people from selling their body — sex, organs, wombs — to nullify any marketplace where an evil person with money can exploit someone else who desperately needs money. This sucks for the people who aren’t in desperate need for the money and instead have made a lifestyle choice to sell their kidneys / intimacy / children but the state can’t reasonably decide who does and does not need protection from exploitation at the point of use, so they either over-protect everyone or under-protect no one. That’s the moral choice here — how much freedom are we willing to relinquish in order to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. It’s not about whether we consider the exploited act to be moral or not, at least from a rational point of view.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    This argument was used against alcohol in the early 1900s, according to Smashing the Liquor Machine. According to them, US alcohol prohibition was lobbied for, in some part, by the left, because they saw it as exploitation. We saw how that turned out. The same thing happened in Russia, where the Bolsheviks banned alcohol for a period, under the same justification. If a policy is known to lead to bad outcomes, it is not a moral policy, no matter the theory behind it. The left has started to realize this. That's why they now advocate for decriminalization, public health campaigns, and mental health support.

fastball 4y ago

Not gonna lie, I thought Obama or Trump or someone had already done this. Had this previously been discussed under a different presidency and not gone through? Was I thinking of a similar blanket pardon but not exactly the same? Was I dreaming?

londgine 4y ago

I guess prosecutors won't be as willing to offer a possession plea deal to people caught running an illegal trafficking operation. AFAIK, most of the people in jail for possession, are there due to a plea deal after being caught for something much worse.

thom_ 4y ago

rkagerer 4y ago

How often do presidents issue blanket pardons like this? Has he effectively overturned a law established by elected legislators, and how does that reconcile with separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch? Why'd he exclude visitors/tourists (and would equivalent state pardons issued by governors)?

rkagerer 4y ago
Note: Presidents can't issue pardons for future offenses (although a pardon can be issued for an offense that has not yet been charged).