17 ms·

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 d

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.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    The problem is that because of underinvestment, or the wrong kinds of it, increasingly stringent standards without the advances in productivity or pedagogy means that every year gets closer to teaching to the test.
  - eftychis 4y ago
    Can't say everyone or even most world wide are doing a great job necessarily. So I wouldn't take it too hard on oneself. But there must be improvement on the topic. The problem in the U.S. I would say is that lack of knowledge of civics and law can get you in more trouble than other countries -- there is less of the "honest mistake" mentality and approach and more of "we have a hammer and we hammer nails or anything that looks like it." Again on average, and my impression. Also the legal system is way too overcomplicated and inconsistent for my formal mind.
- xani_ 4y ago
  Why ? Do they teach that in school ? If not why it would be surprising to not know how it works ?
  - jjk166 4y ago
    It is surprising that it is not typically taught in schools. One would think an understanding of how our government works and the limits of its powers would be critical for a functional democracy, but 57% of Americans have never even read the constitution nonetheless had any formal education about the context and consequences of its clauses. Of course there will always be more things we want kids to learn than there is time to teach them, but I seriously question what was prioritized over civics.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      It's understandable that studying the constitution could be useful, but arguably so would studying the NEC. In both cases it shouldn't be a requirement; we don't demand studying the NEC before using electricity. And even those with a very good understanding of the constitution and civics probably don't have a very good handling on the actualities of how everything works, unless perhaps they're a criminal lawyer.
      - tjohns 4y ago
        On the other hand, if you're going to actually do DIY work on your house's wiring, it would be prudent to at least have some familiarity with the NEC. Since we're in a democracy, every election involves everyday citizens adjusting the wiring of our government. Doubly so in states that allow voter-initiated statutes and constitutional amendments via referendum.
      - kragen 4y ago
        The official original US Constitution is written out on one largish page. The original text, plus footnotes, is 10 pages in https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-.... On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... it's, by my count, 4370 words. That's 12½ minutes of reading. The amendments are another 15 pages, which is mostly taken up by footnotes about which states ratified them when. On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_... we have 809 and 2698 words respectively. That's another 10 minutes of reading. Also, most of that text is unchanged since 01789, and it hasn't changed at all since 01992, when one sentence was added. If you'd spent those 22½ minutes in 01992 you'd still be up to date. And it is in the public domain, so it is easy to obtain. NFPA's National Electrical Code (I assume that's the one you mean) is over 1000 pages, and a new version comes out each year.
- wmf 4y ago
  Pardons are so rare that it's not a good use of brain space for most people. They have been in the news more in recent years due to you know who.
  - thakoppno 4y ago
    > Despite a burst of pardons and commutations in his last hours in office, Donald Trump used his executive clemency power less frequently than nearly every other president since the turn of the 20th century, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Justice Department data. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-his-clemency-power-sparingly-despite-a-raft-of-late-pardons-and-commutations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-...
    - kornork 4y ago
      I mean... fine, but IMO it's not the number of pardons issued that made this top of mind, but rather the constant controversy around people given pardons, gossip about people who requested pardons, and speculation about the legality of a potential self-pardon.
      - rufus_foreman 4y ago
        As opposed to the non-existent controversy over Carter pardoning draft dodgers? Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning Patty Hearst and members of the Weather Underground? Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning his half-brother? Or the non-existent controversy over Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning?
        CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        That last one was a win.
        thakoppno 4y ago
        Between Manning and Assange, whom do you think is more deserving of a pardon?
9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
From a foreign news outlet, ironically, for our American readers: > 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
- munk-a 4y ago
  We had the same reporting up here in Canada. The president doesn't have a power to pardon state offenders but he urged state governors to mirror the change alongside the formal pardon for federal prisoners.
brian_herman 4y ago
I didn't know this, and I am American thanks for the clarification.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  A question meant with the best intent: why didn't you know this? For me, this kind of thing was pretty well covered in high school, and my high school was far from excellent.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    I also didn't really know. High school was thirty years ago, at my school civics was an optional class taught by the football coach, and when learning about how the government works the details of pardons aren't terribly important. I'm sure I read some textbook that said the president can pardon Federal crimes, but my test was something along the lines of "what powers does the executive branch have" and "the pardon" was a good enough answer.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
I have a friend in SV who got arrested for possession in one the national parks around there. Apparently it's a federal charge and hence he is still struggling to get citizenship.
tssva 4y ago
The President also has pardon powers for those convicted of violating District of Columbia laws and this order also applies to those convicted under DC simple possession laws.
- ericbarrett 4y ago
  National parks across the country, too.
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    That's an example of when federal laws apply, yes. (It's not a separate legal system subject to presidential authority.)
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  DC laws are, constitutionally speaking, based on lawmaking authority delegated by Congress under their plenary power over territories and subject to any legislative modifications that Congress chooses to make directly from time to time, so it's effectively federal law.
  - tssva 4y ago
    Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution. The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.
    - jkaplowitz 4y ago
      > Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution. Good catch, thanks for the correction. > The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system. In terms of terminology used every day, you're right. But really, federal authority underlies both of those two legal and judicial systems. It wouldn't violate any separation of powers concern for Congress to amend the rules such that DC local law violations go straight to the US district court, unlike what would be true if DC were a state.
nimbius 4y ago
feels like the current POTUS is either signaling his parties future legislative priority at best, pandering for november votes, or performing the legislative equivalent of 'dnf clean all' as these low level offenders are becoming increasingly burdensome and expensive to house and feed during a recession.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  It's all three. Biden is a consummate politician. From talking with friends, Biden isn't terribly popular with the segment of Democratic voters for which marijuana and student loans are top priority. He managed to make progress on the student loans recently, but efforts on drug reform have stalled.
  - IanDrake 4y ago
    You guys talk about Biden like he's running the show. You've seen him lately, right?
    - lovich 4y ago
      Yes, I fondly recall his speech he gave calling out the MAGA republicans as a danger to the country and right wing media losing their mind over the “fascist” speech. Is the guy a doddering old fool or a dangerous demagogue? It can’t be both simultaneously
      - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        ...which he apparently forgot all about the very next day. I don't know what they had him juiced up with (maybe Pervitin, appropriately?) but that's the most coherent I've ever seen him before or since. The simple solution to the contradiction you propose is: He is a doddering old fool, who is controlled by dangerous demagogues. (And actually, this might describe his predecessor as well.) But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate when they occasionally do something good (regardless of their motivations), and this is one of those times.
pdpi 4y ago
Even if he only has power to issue pardons at the federal level, this sort of measure has plenty of value as a symbolic gesture. It kind of signals a mentality shift.
- n65463f23_4 4y ago
  - adzm 4y ago
    Giving the people what they want; I can get on board with that.
    - celdon25 4y ago
      So I take it you know fully well the entirety of what people want and what the government has been willing to give? Or is this something that happens to be coincidental? The argument doesn't add up to me. Occam's Razor errs on the side of this being a political move, given the timing and the fact that a pardon isn't legalization. Did Biden ask for congress to send him a legalization bill? The federal government's reputation didn't suddenly change here. So no, this isn't really what people want. Just like the government can give people what they want, only when it is convenient to do so, this talking point also seems to come up when convenient, but it isn't true. What is your estimate of the number of people who are eligible for this pardon?
  - coolspot 4y ago
    They are not wrong. Biden could have done that two years ago, but chose to do it only 1 month before midterms.
  - mjfl 4y ago
    Yup. Same with depleting the strategic petroleum reserve and student loan "forgiveness".
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Oh no please politicians stop doing things your constituents want you to do in hopes of success in future re-election campaigns! Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?
aaronbrethorst 4y ago
True, but this will help the tens of thousands of people who have been affected by this that live in Washington, D.C., and provides some precedent for Governors to do the same across the country. https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488 https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488
coryfklein 4y ago
It does set the stage for states to issue similar pardons. Although red states are unlikely to do so, I believe it will have second-order effects that do pressure red states. A large part of The War On Drugs was the top-down messaging villainizing possession and use of cannabis, and that same power is now being used in the opposite direction to some extent. Combine that with an aging baby boomer generation, and you have youth growing up in red states today who are much less likely to believe that folks should be put in jail for possession. Next the purple states will adopt similar language and policy, then the idea of criminalization well become an outside/extremist/fringe policy and – my prediction – finally within a decade or two even many red states will be decriminalizing cannabis as well.
eloff 4y ago
Still, it will set an example for the blue states to follow. That's something at least. Red states would probably be less likely to do this just based on where the example is coming from. It's progress of a sort in undoing a grave injustice.
- nkozyra 4y ago
  Most of the blue states are legal or decriminalized at this point. What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for clemency/pardons when legalization happens. I don't care about marijuana, it's never been very interesting to me, but it's absurd the amount of human capital that's gone into stopping it and sigmatizing its use in this country.
  - tutorialmanager 4y ago
    The amount of money spent for police and prison and the number of wasted human years (while in prison) is staggering. At the same time, I wish there was better data on the number of people who have permanent mental illness due to drug use. Is there much causation or just correlation?
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    > What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for clemency/pardons when legalization happens. There absolutely has been though. California: https://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/dismissal-and-re-sentencing-of-certain-marijuana-convictions https://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/dismissal-and-re-sente... Washington: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/washington-gov-inslee-pardon-thousands-convicted-marijuana-possession-n954981 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/washington-gov-i... Colorado: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/6986-governor-polis-grants-clemency-including-marijuana-pardons https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/6986-governor-polis-g... etc. etc.
    - nkozyra 4y ago
      "when legalization happens" is perhaps the part you missed about my comment. These are things that have happened decades after legalization!
dexwiz 4y ago
Also if they are in prison due to other charges, like those relating to firearms, they may remain in there. Most people are not charged for possession alone.
- notch656a 4y ago
  It's fucked up though that merely possessing weed+firearm is makes you "prohibited possessor" with 10 years in jail when a NAND of the two is legal. Such a person may be considered a violator of weapons and drug laws, even though all they did was own a legal firearm and simple possession of weed.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    Fucked up yes, but anyone fucking with drugs that has half a brain knows this, so the ones getting convicted are probably not using them for target practice
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Youtube star FPSRussia was just using them for target practice. He ultimately got convicted of possession of hash oil (with intent, seemingly solely because he shared it with his girlfriend). While he plead down to the possesion w/ intent it's my understanding the original charges included prohibited possessor. I don't think he'll get the pardon either since he got a distribution charge for toking with the GF.
      - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        Yeah there are definitely scenarios where its some real bullshit, I agree. And it's fucked up that a persons decision to smoke weed essentially removes their second amendment rights. But its still a decision that you can make, you know. It's not like you HAVE to have a gun. (idk the specifics of the FPSrussia case so won't comment on that)
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
cryptonector 4y ago
It's a pretty empty gesture.
Maursault 4y ago
> The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession are not charged Federally. I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession occurred at national parks and monuments. But still even if violations were widespread, arrests and convictions probably weren't. You would need a really bored D.A., and I would assume they're usually just as busy as most other attorneys.
- naasking 4y ago
  > I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession occurred at national parks and monuments Borders?
  - tutorialmanager 4y ago
    There were probably many smuggling cases that pled down to simple possession for various reasons. And now pardoned.
ch4s3 4y ago
This applies to somewhere in the neighborhood of 149 people[1]. [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....
- runjake 4y ago
  The way I’m reading it, it also applies to people who are not incarcerated but still have felonies on their records. If so, that’s a whole lot more than 149 people.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    6 500, according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113859 In 2017, there were 650 000 marijuana arrests across the states, up from the year before. https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state
    - viscanti 4y ago
      That's just in the DC metro area. Nationally it could be higher.
    - runjake 4y ago
      Thanks for taking the time to fill in some blanks. Great links.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
        My pleasure and thanks for taking the time to thank.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    That could be correct, I didn’t read it closely. I think the total number then is still probably quite low. I’m not disparaging the move and think it’s good but adding perspective.
rasz 4y ago
>Biden can't do anything about the State level charges most people are charged with nothing whatsoever, other than you know, shuffling https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html
yenwodyah 4y ago
He encouraged all state governors to do the same: >Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...)
- xivzgrev 4y ago
  This. The fed government started the war on drugs, and a powerful way to start shifting away is ending it at fed level. It‘a simple leadership.
LanceH 4y ago
And it's still illegal going forward, which means it's still valid reason for civil asset forfeiture, something the feds are major players in, either directly or through "sharing" with the states.
Bud 4y ago
Not really true. This action amounts to Biden doing something about state-level charges as well. He explicitly encouraged states to follow suit. He also announced that he's reviewing the absurd Schedule 1 designation for marijuana, which is also a huge deal. And today's action moves us a lot closer to real national legalization.
guywithahat 4y ago
The concern here is that if you are charged federally with marijuana possession, you probably weren't a light user. You were probably a drug trafficker who was associated with gangs and much stronger drugs, and I'm not sure I want those people back on the streets any sooner then necessary
mjthrowaway1 4y ago
Biden also limited the scope to possession. Serving 30 years for selling an ounce of weed? Biden doesn’t care. The list of cannabis offenders imprisoned federally is 40k people. Biden pardoned 6.5k most of whom are not currently serving time.
smsm42 4y ago
True, but also traditionally Federal marijuana stance has been much more strict than most of the states. I think this action may signal that it is changing.
hilbert42 4y ago
"Just noting for non-American readers." I'm not in the US and I am aware of the Fed/States law/divide but that's not the most important issue for those of us outside the US. The truly significantly point about Biden's announcement is that the attitude to marijuana use will almost certainly change worldwide. I don't expect the world to go pot-crazy overnight or such, but as I see it it's a very noticeable (albeit small) crack in the way drug use is policed and this will be echoed to varying degrees worldwide. The fact that the US president has done this is an indicator to the world that the all-or-nothing/black and white approach to policing drug use is not the correct approach and that it ought to be more nuanced and targeted. And, in my opinion, that's to be welcomed. It goes without saying there are major problems with drug use and I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach to their use—far from it. However, what Biden's announcement shows the world that not all drugs have equally bad outcomes for users and that this should be reflected generally by grading drug laws more appropriately. With Biden's words, hopefully drug use will become less of a criminal activity and more of a medical one. FYI, I'm not a marijuana user—well anyway not a recent one, haven't used it since my student days quite some decades ago.

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.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  The problem is that because of underinvestment, or the wrong kinds of it, increasingly stringent standards without the advances in productivity or pedagogy means that every year gets closer to teaching to the test.
- eftychis 4y ago
  Can't say everyone or even most world wide are doing a great job necessarily. So I wouldn't take it too hard on oneself. But there must be improvement on the topic. The problem in the U.S. I would say is that lack of knowledge of civics and law can get you in more trouble than other countries -- there is less of the "honest mistake" mentality and approach and more of "we have a hammer and we hammer nails or anything that looks like it." Again on average, and my impression. Also the legal system is way too overcomplicated and inconsistent for my formal mind.
xani_ 4y ago
Why ? Do they teach that in school ? If not why it would be surprising to not know how it works ?
- jjk166 4y ago
  It is surprising that it is not typically taught in schools. One would think an understanding of how our government works and the limits of its powers would be critical for a functional democracy, but 57% of Americans have never even read the constitution nonetheless had any formal education about the context and consequences of its clauses. Of course there will always be more things we want kids to learn than there is time to teach them, but I seriously question what was prioritized over civics.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It's understandable that studying the constitution could be useful, but arguably so would studying the NEC. In both cases it shouldn't be a requirement; we don't demand studying the NEC before using electricity. And even those with a very good understanding of the constitution and civics probably don't have a very good handling on the actualities of how everything works, unless perhaps they're a criminal lawyer.
    - tjohns 4y ago
      On the other hand, if you're going to actually do DIY work on your house's wiring, it would be prudent to at least have some familiarity with the NEC. Since we're in a democracy, every election involves everyday citizens adjusting the wiring of our government. Doubly so in states that allow voter-initiated statutes and constitutional amendments via referendum.
    - kragen 4y ago
      The official original US Constitution is written out on one largish page. The original text, plus footnotes, is 10 pages in https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-.... On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... it's, by my count, 4370 words. That's 12½ minutes of reading. The amendments are another 15 pages, which is mostly taken up by footnotes about which states ratified them when. On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_... we have 809 and 2698 words respectively. That's another 10 minutes of reading. Also, most of that text is unchanged since 01789, and it hasn't changed at all since 01992, when one sentence was added. If you'd spent those 22½ minutes in 01992 you'd still be up to date. And it is in the public domain, so it is easy to obtain. NFPA's National Electrical Code (I assume that's the one you mean) is over 1000 pages, and a new version comes out each year.
wmf 4y ago
Pardons are so rare that it's not a good use of brain space for most people. They have been in the news more in recent years due to you know who.
- thakoppno 4y ago
  > Despite a burst of pardons and commutations in his last hours in office, Donald Trump used his executive clemency power less frequently than nearly every other president since the turn of the 20th century, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Justice Department data. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-his-clemency-power-sparingly-despite-a-raft-of-late-pardons-and-commutations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-...
  - kornork 4y ago
    I mean... fine, but IMO it's not the number of pardons issued that made this top of mind, but rather the constant controversy around people given pardons, gossip about people who requested pardons, and speculation about the legality of a potential self-pardon.
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      As opposed to the non-existent controversy over Carter pardoning draft dodgers? Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning Patty Hearst and members of the Weather Underground? Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning his half-brother? Or the non-existent controversy over Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning?
      - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        That last one was a win.
        thakoppno 4y ago
        Between Manning and Assange, whom do you think is more deserving of a pardon?

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

From a foreign news outlet, ironically, for our American readers: > 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

munk-a 4y ago
We had the same reporting up here in Canada. The president doesn't have a power to pardon state offenders but he urged state governors to mirror the change alongside the formal pardon for federal prisoners.

brian_herman 4y ago

I didn't know this, and I am American thanks for the clarification.

colechristensen 4y ago
A question meant with the best intent: why didn't you know this? For me, this kind of thing was pretty well covered in high school, and my high school was far from excellent.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I also didn't really know. High school was thirty years ago, at my school civics was an optional class taught by the football coach, and when learning about how the government works the details of pardons aren't terribly important. I'm sure I read some textbook that said the president can pardon Federal crimes, but my test was something along the lines of "what powers does the executive branch have" and "the pardon" was a good enough answer.

dzhiurgis 4y ago

I have a friend in SV who got arrested for possession in one the national parks around there. Apparently it's a federal charge and hence he is still struggling to get citizenship.

tssva 4y ago

The President also has pardon powers for those convicted of violating District of Columbia laws and this order also applies to those convicted under DC simple possession laws.

ericbarrett 4y ago
National parks across the country, too.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  That's an example of when federal laws apply, yes. (It's not a separate legal system subject to presidential authority.)
jkaplowitz 4y ago
DC laws are, constitutionally speaking, based on lawmaking authority delegated by Congress under their plenary power over territories and subject to any legislative modifications that Congress chooses to make directly from time to time, so it's effectively federal law.
- tssva 4y ago
  Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution. The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    > Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution. Good catch, thanks for the correction. > The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system. In terms of terminology used every day, you're right. But really, federal authority underlies both of those two legal and judicial systems. It wouldn't violate any separation of powers concern for Congress to amend the rules such that DC local law violations go straight to the US district court, unlike what would be true if DC were a state.

nimbius 4y ago

feels like the current POTUS is either signaling his parties future legislative priority at best, pandering for november votes, or performing the legislative equivalent of 'dnf clean all' as these low level offenders are becoming increasingly burdensome and expensive to house and feed during a recession.

mywittyname 4y ago
It's all three. Biden is a consummate politician. From talking with friends, Biden isn't terribly popular with the segment of Democratic voters for which marijuana and student loans are top priority. He managed to make progress on the student loans recently, but efforts on drug reform have stalled.
- IanDrake 4y ago
  You guys talk about Biden like he's running the show. You've seen him lately, right?
  - lovich 4y ago
    Yes, I fondly recall his speech he gave calling out the MAGA republicans as a danger to the country and right wing media losing their mind over the “fascist” speech. Is the guy a doddering old fool or a dangerous demagogue? It can’t be both simultaneously
    - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
      ...which he apparently forgot all about the very next day. I don't know what they had him juiced up with (maybe Pervitin, appropriately?) but that's the most coherent I've ever seen him before or since. The simple solution to the contradiction you propose is: He is a doddering old fool, who is controlled by dangerous demagogues. (And actually, this might describe his predecessor as well.) But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate when they occasionally do something good (regardless of their motivations), and this is one of those times.

pdpi 4y ago

Even if he only has power to issue pardons at the federal level, this sort of measure has plenty of value as a symbolic gesture. It kind of signals a mentality shift.

n65463f23_4 4y ago
- adzm 4y ago
  Giving the people what they want; I can get on board with that.
  - celdon25 4y ago
    So I take it you know fully well the entirety of what people want and what the government has been willing to give? Or is this something that happens to be coincidental? The argument doesn't add up to me. Occam's Razor errs on the side of this being a political move, given the timing and the fact that a pardon isn't legalization. Did Biden ask for congress to send him a legalization bill? The federal government's reputation didn't suddenly change here. So no, this isn't really what people want. Just like the government can give people what they want, only when it is convenient to do so, this talking point also seems to come up when convenient, but it isn't true. What is your estimate of the number of people who are eligible for this pardon?
- coolspot 4y ago
  They are not wrong. Biden could have done that two years ago, but chose to do it only 1 month before midterms.
- mjfl 4y ago
  Yup. Same with depleting the strategic petroleum reserve and student loan "forgiveness".
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Oh no please politicians stop doing things your constituents want you to do in hopes of success in future re-election campaigns! Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?

aaronbrethorst 4y ago

True, but this will help the tens of thousands of people who have been affected by this that live in Washington, D.C., and provides some precedent for Governors to do the same across the country. https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488 https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488

coryfklein 4y ago

It does set the stage for states to issue similar pardons. Although red states are unlikely to do so, I believe it will have second-order effects that do pressure red states. A large part of The War On Drugs was the top-down messaging villainizing possession and use of cannabis, and that same power is now being used in the opposite direction to some extent. Combine that with an aging baby boomer generation, and you have youth growing up in red states today who are much less likely to believe that folks should be put in jail for possession. Next the purple states will adopt similar language and policy, then the idea of criminalization well become an outside/extremist/fringe policy and – my prediction – finally within a decade or two even many red states will be decriminalizing cannabis as well.

eloff 4y ago

Still, it will set an example for the blue states to follow. That's something at least. Red states would probably be less likely to do this just based on where the example is coming from. It's progress of a sort in undoing a grave injustice.

nkozyra 4y ago
Most of the blue states are legal or decriminalized at this point. What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for clemency/pardons when legalization happens. I don't care about marijuana, it's never been very interesting to me, but it's absurd the amount of human capital that's gone into stopping it and sigmatizing its use in this country.
- tutorialmanager 4y ago
  The amount of money spent for police and prison and the number of wasted human years (while in prison) is staggering. At the same time, I wish there was better data on the number of people who have permanent mental illness due to drug use. Is there much causation or just correlation?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  > What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for clemency/pardons when legalization happens. There absolutely has been though. California: https://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/dismissal-and-re-sentencing-of-certain-marijuana-convictions https://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/dismissal-and-re-sente... Washington: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/washington-gov-inslee-pardon-thousands-convicted-marijuana-possession-n954981 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/washington-gov-i... Colorado: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/6986-governor-polis-grants-clemency-including-marijuana-pardons https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/6986-governor-polis-g... etc. etc.
  - nkozyra 4y ago
    "when legalization happens" is perhaps the part you missed about my comment. These are things that have happened decades after legalization!

dexwiz 4y ago

Also if they are in prison due to other charges, like those relating to firearms, they may remain in there. Most people are not charged for possession alone.

notch656a 4y ago
It's fucked up though that merely possessing weed+firearm is makes you "prohibited possessor" with 10 years in jail when a NAND of the two is legal. Such a person may be considered a violator of weapons and drug laws, even though all they did was own a legal firearm and simple possession of weed.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  Fucked up yes, but anyone fucking with drugs that has half a brain knows this, so the ones getting convicted are probably not using them for target practice
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Youtube star FPSRussia was just using them for target practice. He ultimately got convicted of possession of hash oil (with intent, seemingly solely because he shared it with his girlfriend). While he plead down to the possesion w/ intent it's my understanding the original charges included prohibited possessor. I don't think he'll get the pardon either since he got a distribution charge for toking with the GF.
    - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
      Yeah there are definitely scenarios where its some real bullshit, I agree. And it's fucked up that a persons decision to smoke weed essentially removes their second amendment rights. But its still a decision that you can make, you know. It's not like you HAVE to have a gun. (idk the specifics of the FPSrussia case so won't comment on that)
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago

cryptonector 4y ago

It's a pretty empty gesture.

Maursault 4y ago

> The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession are not charged Federally. I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession occurred at national parks and monuments. But still even if violations were widespread, arrests and convictions probably weren't. You would need a really bored D.A., and I would assume they're usually just as busy as most other attorneys.

naasking 4y ago
> I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession occurred at national parks and monuments Borders?
- tutorialmanager 4y ago
  There were probably many smuggling cases that pled down to simple possession for various reasons. And now pardoned.

ch4s3 4y ago

This applies to somewhere in the neighborhood of 149 people[1]. [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....

runjake 4y ago
The way I’m reading it, it also applies to people who are not incarcerated but still have felonies on their records. If so, that’s a whole lot more than 149 people.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  6 500, according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113859 In 2017, there were 650 000 marijuana arrests across the states, up from the year before. https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state
  - viscanti 4y ago
    That's just in the DC metro area. Nationally it could be higher.
  - runjake 4y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to fill in some blanks. Great links.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      My pleasure and thanks for taking the time to thank.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  That could be correct, I didn’t read it closely. I think the total number then is still probably quite low. I’m not disparaging the move and think it’s good but adding perspective.

rasz 4y ago

>Biden can't do anything about the State level charges most people are charged with nothing whatsoever, other than you know, shuffling https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html

yenwodyah 4y ago

He encouraged all state governors to do the same: >Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...)

xivzgrev 4y ago
This. The fed government started the war on drugs, and a powerful way to start shifting away is ending it at fed level. It‘a simple leadership.

LanceH 4y ago

And it's still illegal going forward, which means it's still valid reason for civil asset forfeiture, something the feds are major players in, either directly or through "sharing" with the states.

Bud 4y ago

Not really true. This action amounts to Biden doing something about state-level charges as well. He explicitly encouraged states to follow suit. He also announced that he's reviewing the absurd Schedule 1 designation for marijuana, which is also a huge deal. And today's action moves us a lot closer to real national legalization.

guywithahat 4y ago

The concern here is that if you are charged federally with marijuana possession, you probably weren't a light user. You were probably a drug trafficker who was associated with gangs and much stronger drugs, and I'm not sure I want those people back on the streets any sooner then necessary

mjthrowaway1 4y ago

Biden also limited the scope to possession. Serving 30 years for selling an ounce of weed? Biden doesn’t care. The list of cannabis offenders imprisoned federally is 40k people. Biden pardoned 6.5k most of whom are not currently serving time.

smsm42 4y ago

True, but also traditionally Federal marijuana stance has been much more strict than most of the states. I think this action may signal that it is changing.

hilbert42 4y ago

"Just noting for non-American readers." I'm not in the US and I am aware of the Fed/States law/divide but that's not the most important issue for those of us outside the US. The truly significantly point about Biden's announcement is that the attitude to marijuana use will almost certainly change worldwide. I don't expect the world to go pot-crazy overnight or such, but as I see it it's a very noticeable (albeit small) crack in the way drug use is policed and this will be echoed to varying degrees worldwide. The fact that the US president has done this is an indicator to the world that the all-or-nothing/black and white approach to policing drug use is not the correct approach and that it ought to be more nuanced and targeted. And, in my opinion, that's to be welcomed. It goes without saying there are major problems with drug use and I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach to their use—far from it. However, what Biden's announcement shows the world that not all drugs have equally bad outcomes for users and that this should be reflected generally by grading drug laws more appropriately. With Biden's words, hopefully drug use will become less of a criminal activity and more of a medical one. FYI, I'm not a marijuana user—well anyway not a recent one, haven't used it since my student days quite some decades ago.