25 ms·

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

by 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?
  - NackerHughes 4y ago
    The way it's supposed to work is that politicians do things their constituents want all the time, rather than token gestures just as the time approaches when they risk being kicked out if they're unpopular.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The reality is the politicians always promise to do what people want but never quite actually do it, so that they can keep getting those people to vote for them. Works painfully well all around.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      I don't know of a political system which doesn't work contrary to intention. You just hope they work and try to make them better. Cursing the times they do function seems weird. Every U.S. president going back to Lincoln and before has triangulated their actions based upon the political circumstances of their moment. The Emancipation Proclamation itself was pocketed until it could be announced after a clear Union victory. I think the criticism is fine but it doesn't make Biden unique at all and keeping that context is important.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      Sure, that would be great. It would also be great if my socks would conveniently pair themselves off and get into my dresser when I was done with laundry. In reality, systems operate according to rules. In the case of people, they will always * act in their actual or perceived self-interest. The whole point of relatively frequent elections is that we know politicians do this. We get a little honeymoon period when they are first elected, a little honeymoon period before the next election activity, and a period in the middle where they do whatever they can do satisfy whatever internal reward function they have. I am all about encouraging them to do the things I like for as long as possible. This is a thing I like. *mostly
- pdpi 4y ago
  Sure. But it wasn't that long ago that the way you acted on elections coming up would be to adopt a "tough on drugs" posture.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Democrats are the defund the police party nowadays
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Which is bizarre because these midterms are projected to be incredibly non-competitive. There are very few genuine toss-ups to speak of. Even if all toss-ups go red or blue, neither party can gain a filibuster-proof majority. Best case for Democrats, Manchin and Sinema still reign as agenda-makers.
danso 4y ago
Yep! And IIRC, states that have fully legalized marijuana still have has big headaches dealing with the fact that it's outlawed by the feds.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Note that those headaches are still largely unresolved by this. It only covers possession, and it's a pardon, so possession is still technically outlawed.
  - danso 4y ago
    Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later. One of the early mini-scandals of the Biden White House was how "dozens of young White House staffers" were in trouble because they had believed "initial indications" that casual pot use would not automatically disqualify them from the job. And that seemed like a sure sign that Biden would be a real hard ass on pot use. Only 5 staffers out of "hundreds" were ultimately disqualified from the policy, and given what Biden has done today, we have some assurance he really is going to be sympathetic and reasonable about pot. https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-white-house-sandbags-staffers-sidelines-dozens-for-pot-use https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-white-house-sandbags-sta...
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later. He’s directed the officials that are empowered by law to change its status without Congress doing anything to begin the process by which that would happen. So, its not just a symbolic act that may effect that sooner or later.
- Kiro 4y ago
  What are the headaches and how do they solve it? Just interested what it means in practice with different state and federal laws.
rekttrader 4y ago
Also, cases can be brought on a state based jurisdictional level and be dropped cause of this federal act.
- valleyer 4y ago
  On what basis? In the US, the tenth amendment allows states to enforce their own drug laws regardless of what the federal government says.
  - CameronNemo 4y ago
    Something something Wickard v. Filburn
- IncRnd 4y ago
  That's not true. First, this is not a federal act. An act is an individual law. A federal act is a federal law. This, however, comes through the use of the President's constitutional pardon power, which is only allowed for offenses against the United States. Due to the creation of The District of Columbia, offenses against that code are also included in the President's pardon power. This absolutely does not apply to any state.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 4y ago
“But it’s symbolic” is literally the cope of our generation. It means practically nothing and we must demand more than symbolism.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Legalization isn't like fixing climate change or curing cancer. It is literally just a question of getting enough voters and politicians to agree that the current laws are stupid. A 79-year-old President signing this pardon is actually a huge step in forming that consensus.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Voters already agree the laws need to change. It's congress holding us back against the will of the people who elected them. Republicans have already spoken out against this pardon.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      Well, that's to be expected. If it was The Orange Man who'd done this, you can take an educated guess at who'd be speaking out against it. Congress is a middle school playground.
- autoexec 4y ago
  This was not symbolic. There are thousands of people for whom this action is the farthest thing from symbolic. Thousands of people who will be released from cages and able to see their families again. This pardon is absolutely making a difference in a lot of people's lives. If the justice department reschedules the drug, and other states pardon their prisoners as he's asked them to then the impact will be much much greater.
cwkoss 4y ago
Biden admin has been making a lot of symbolically valuable half-measure gestures. If substantive change follows on each, he could be the greatest president since FDR. Or, he could lose re-election and we're left with a bunch of impotent symbols that are gradually undone. I'm still cynical, but slightly more optimistic today.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Any president that doesn't put an entire race of people into camps is better than FDR in my opinion.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Bush II caused much more harm by starting two unjustifiable wars. The victims just weren't American.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      Some historians believe FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor ahead of time and allowed it to take place in order to have a pretext to enter the war, essentially starting WW2.
      - smt88 4y ago
        A) This is absolutely a fringe belief, if it is believed at all. Cite a source if you think it could be true. B) World War II started two years earlier than Pearl Harbor, when Hitler invaded Poland. The idea that FDR started WWII is the most ludicrous, revisionist idea I've ever heard about history.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        1. Good number of former navy people seem to believe it like this guy: https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408 https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408 2. My point is it's not really a "world" war without the US. Would've probably called it something else.
Test0129 4y ago
Not to be the bearer of bad news but it actually suggests an election season and not a mentality shift. We're gonna need to vote the average age of congress down about 20 years to see any realistic change on this IMO.
- uup 4y ago
  I saw this on Reddit and it resonated. Yes, it’s the election season and we’re seeing democracy in action: that’s when elected officials do things you like and then you vote for them again. Not sure why you’re making it sound like a bad thing.
  - ssalka 4y ago
    Because they stop doing the things you like once the election is over
    - urspx 4y ago
      Sure, but then there is another election. After the election is before the election.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        If I elect someone to lead the country for 4 years, I’d prefer they lead the country for at least 3.75 of those years, not for two 4-6 month stints in 4 years. (Neither party has a monopoly on this BS.)
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    It's bad because there are people that have been sitting in prison that could have been released over a year and a half ago, but Biden would rather let them rot for a while longer just so he could score political points at a more convenient time.
    - MarkMarine 4y ago
RickJWagner 4y ago

by 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?
- NackerHughes 4y ago
  The way it's supposed to work is that politicians do things their constituents want all the time, rather than token gestures just as the time approaches when they risk being kicked out if they're unpopular.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The reality is the politicians always promise to do what people want but never quite actually do it, so that they can keep getting those people to vote for them. Works painfully well all around.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    I don't know of a political system which doesn't work contrary to intention. You just hope they work and try to make them better. Cursing the times they do function seems weird. Every U.S. president going back to Lincoln and before has triangulated their actions based upon the political circumstances of their moment. The Emancipation Proclamation itself was pocketed until it could be announced after a clear Union victory. I think the criticism is fine but it doesn't make Biden unique at all and keeping that context is important.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Sure, that would be great. It would also be great if my socks would conveniently pair themselves off and get into my dresser when I was done with laundry. In reality, systems operate according to rules. In the case of people, they will always * act in their actual or perceived self-interest. The whole point of relatively frequent elections is that we know politicians do this. We get a little honeymoon period when they are first elected, a little honeymoon period before the next election activity, and a period in the middle where they do whatever they can do satisfy whatever internal reward function they have. I am all about encouraging them to do the things I like for as long as possible. This is a thing I like. *mostly
pdpi 4y ago
Sure. But it wasn't that long ago that the way you acted on elections coming up would be to adopt a "tough on drugs" posture.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Democrats are the defund the police party nowadays
jimbob45 4y ago
Which is bizarre because these midterms are projected to be incredibly non-competitive. There are very few genuine toss-ups to speak of. Even if all toss-ups go red or blue, neither party can gain a filibuster-proof majority. Best case for Democrats, Manchin and Sinema still reign as agenda-makers.

danso 4y ago

Yep! And IIRC, states that have fully legalized marijuana still have has big headaches dealing with the fact that it's outlawed by the feds.

cbsmith 4y ago
Note that those headaches are still largely unresolved by this. It only covers possession, and it's a pardon, so possession is still technically outlawed.
- danso 4y ago
  Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later. One of the early mini-scandals of the Biden White House was how "dozens of young White House staffers" were in trouble because they had believed "initial indications" that casual pot use would not automatically disqualify them from the job. And that seemed like a sure sign that Biden would be a real hard ass on pot use. Only 5 staffers out of "hundreds" were ultimately disqualified from the policy, and given what Biden has done today, we have some assurance he really is going to be sympathetic and reasonable about pot. https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-white-house-sandbags-staffers-sidelines-dozens-for-pot-use https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-white-house-sandbags-sta...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later. He’s directed the officials that are empowered by law to change its status without Congress doing anything to begin the process by which that would happen. So, its not just a symbolic act that may effect that sooner or later.
Kiro 4y ago
What are the headaches and how do they solve it? Just interested what it means in practice with different state and federal laws.

rekttrader 4y ago

Also, cases can be brought on a state based jurisdictional level and be dropped cause of this federal act.

valleyer 4y ago
On what basis? In the US, the tenth amendment allows states to enforce their own drug laws regardless of what the federal government says.
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  Something something Wickard v. Filburn
IncRnd 4y ago
That's not true. First, this is not a federal act. An act is an individual law. A federal act is a federal law. This, however, comes through the use of the President's constitutional pardon power, which is only allowed for offenses against the United States. Due to the creation of The District of Columbia, offenses against that code are also included in the President's pardon power. This absolutely does not apply to any state.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 4y ago

“But it’s symbolic” is literally the cope of our generation. It means practically nothing and we must demand more than symbolism.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
Legalization isn't like fixing climate change or curing cancer. It is literally just a question of getting enough voters and politicians to agree that the current laws are stupid. A 79-year-old President signing this pardon is actually a huge step in forming that consensus.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Voters already agree the laws need to change. It's congress holding us back against the will of the people who elected them. Republicans have already spoken out against this pardon.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    Well, that's to be expected. If it was The Orange Man who'd done this, you can take an educated guess at who'd be speaking out against it. Congress is a middle school playground.
autoexec 4y ago
This was not symbolic. There are thousands of people for whom this action is the farthest thing from symbolic. Thousands of people who will be released from cages and able to see their families again. This pardon is absolutely making a difference in a lot of people's lives. If the justice department reschedules the drug, and other states pardon their prisoners as he's asked them to then the impact will be much much greater.

cwkoss 4y ago

Biden admin has been making a lot of symbolically valuable half-measure gestures. If substantive change follows on each, he could be the greatest president since FDR. Or, he could lose re-election and we're left with a bunch of impotent symbols that are gradually undone. I'm still cynical, but slightly more optimistic today.

willcipriano 4y ago
Any president that doesn't put an entire race of people into camps is better than FDR in my opinion.
- smt88 4y ago
  Bush II caused much more harm by starting two unjustifiable wars. The victims just weren't American.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Some historians believe FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor ahead of time and allowed it to take place in order to have a pretext to enter the war, essentially starting WW2.
    - smt88 4y ago
      A) This is absolutely a fringe belief, if it is believed at all. Cite a source if you think it could be true. B) World War II started two years earlier than Pearl Harbor, when Hitler invaded Poland. The idea that FDR started WWII is the most ludicrous, revisionist idea I've ever heard about history.
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        1. Good number of former navy people seem to believe it like this guy: https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408 https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408 2. My point is it's not really a "world" war without the US. Would've probably called it something else.

Test0129 4y ago

Not to be the bearer of bad news but it actually suggests an election season and not a mentality shift. We're gonna need to vote the average age of congress down about 20 years to see any realistic change on this IMO.

uup 4y ago
I saw this on Reddit and it resonated. Yes, it’s the election season and we’re seeing democracy in action: that’s when elected officials do things you like and then you vote for them again. Not sure why you’re making it sound like a bad thing.
- ssalka 4y ago
  Because they stop doing the things you like once the election is over
  - urspx 4y ago
    Sure, but then there is another election. After the election is before the election.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      If I elect someone to lead the country for 4 years, I’d prefer they lead the country for at least 3.75 of those years, not for two 4-6 month stints in 4 years. (Neither party has a monopoly on this BS.)
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  It's bad because there are people that have been sitting in prison that could have been released over a year and a half ago, but Biden would rather let them rot for a while longer just so he could score political points at a more convenient time.
  - MarkMarine 4y ago

RickJWagner 4y ago