4 ms·

> 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

> 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
        It was not. UK/EU were large factors since it was an extension of the agreements made during the League of Nation formation. The original UN secretary notes indicate specifically this is true; especially since INTERPOL was created for drug policing in the first place. The US has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      Well, they just voted on cannabis reforms recommended by the WHO two years ago, and the votes seemed to be split nearly 50-50. Article 23 of the 1961 Convention will allow the eventual teatotalling minority to maintain their stricter controls while allowing the remainder of the Parties to operate without contradiction to their constitutional obligations, vis-a-vis legalization of non-therapeutic adult use of cannabis.
      - chatterhead 4y ago
        That was amended in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub... The UN has the final say. "A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential.[17] However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol."
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        From your link: “As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries: 4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction. 5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.” Do you have a reference link to the amendment that you are claiming nullifies this? Or are you claiming that Article 23 was amended such that Party states cannot be selectively stricter than the Convention?
        chatterhead 4y ago
        What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties. Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
    - grecy 4y ago
      How did Canada and other countries manage to do it federally?
      - chatterhead 4y ago
        I don't know about Canada's Constitution or laws; the USA has Article 6 that specifically makes Treaties the law of the land. Did Canada change the schedule of cannabis or just simply create a legal framework for possession, sale and decriminalization? Scheduling is the authority of the CND of the UN. If they didn't reschedule it perhaps that's a loophole they exploited; maybe the US can do the same, maybe our laws or Article 6 prevents us; not sure. Good question.
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        Canada was chastised by the UN for not having a reporting mechanism in place to make drug reports to the UN. Apparently they are just flagrantly failing to comply with general portions of the Convention.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > Mr Biden, a Democrat, said he will call upon all state governors to issue their own marijuana pardons. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    Alcohol is quite obviously the more dangerous drug and is clearly sold at absurdly high percentages of content, legally, as well. Ending the prohibition of one and beginning the prohibition of another sounds like an exercise in futility and double-standards. The alcohol lobby is quite large.
    - buzzert 4y ago
      As if there’s no “medical” marijuana lobby, too?
  - jastanton 4y ago
    "The book has been denounced as alarmist and inaccurate in the scientific and medical communities because [the author] claims that cannabis causes psychosis and violence; many scientists state that he is drawing inappropriate conclusions from the research, primarily by inferring causation from correlation as well as cherry picking data that fits his narrative, and falling victim to selection bias via his use of anecdotes to back up his assertions." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      More recently, from a "credible" source: 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...
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > it is a dangerous drug, and getting more dangerous as dealers breed plants with more and more THC. In your opinion, how does MJ compare to alcohol in terms of dangerousness?

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
      It was not. UK/EU were large factors since it was an extension of the agreements made during the League of Nation formation. The original UN secretary notes indicate specifically this is true; especially since INTERPOL was created for drug policing in the first place. The US has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    Well, they just voted on cannabis reforms recommended by the WHO two years ago, and the votes seemed to be split nearly 50-50. Article 23 of the 1961 Convention will allow the eventual teatotalling minority to maintain their stricter controls while allowing the remainder of the Parties to operate without contradiction to their constitutional obligations, vis-a-vis legalization of non-therapeutic adult use of cannabis.
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      That was amended in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub... The UN has the final say. "A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential.[17] However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol."
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        From your link: “As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries: 4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction. 5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.” Do you have a reference link to the amendment that you are claiming nullifies this? Or are you claiming that Article 23 was amended such that Party states cannot be selectively stricter than the Convention?
        chatterhead 4y ago
        What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties. Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
  - grecy 4y ago
    How did Canada and other countries manage to do it federally?
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      I don't know about Canada's Constitution or laws; the USA has Article 6 that specifically makes Treaties the law of the land. Did Canada change the schedule of cannabis or just simply create a legal framework for possession, sale and decriminalization? Scheduling is the authority of the CND of the UN. If they didn't reschedule it perhaps that's a loophole they exploited; maybe the US can do the same, maybe our laws or Article 6 prevents us; not sure. Good question.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        Canada was chastised by the UN for not having a reporting mechanism in place to make drug reports to the UN. Apparently they are just flagrantly failing to comply with general portions of the Convention.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
> Mr Biden, a Democrat, said he will call upon all state governors to issue their own marijuana pardons. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Georgelemental 4y ago
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  Alcohol is quite obviously the more dangerous drug and is clearly sold at absurdly high percentages of content, legally, as well. Ending the prohibition of one and beginning the prohibition of another sounds like an exercise in futility and double-standards. The alcohol lobby is quite large.
  - buzzert 4y ago
    As if there’s no “medical” marijuana lobby, too?
- jastanton 4y ago
  "The book has been denounced as alarmist and inaccurate in the scientific and medical communities because [the author] claims that cannabis causes psychosis and violence; many scientists state that he is drawing inappropriate conclusions from the research, primarily by inferring causation from correlation as well as cherry picking data that fits his narrative, and falling victim to selection bias via his use of anecdotes to back up his assertions." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    More recently, from a "credible" source: 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...
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > it is a dangerous drug, and getting more dangerous as dealers breed plants with more and more THC. In your opinion, how does MJ compare to alcohol in terms of dangerousness?