6 ms·

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.

by danso 4y ago

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.
- danso 4y ago
  Here's an ancient example from 2013: https://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-wont-block-colorado-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-won... > Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana-legalization laws in the two states. The federal government also will not make it a priority to close down recreational marijuana stores, so long as the stores abide by state regulations, according to the memo. The Attorney General de-prioritizing a crime sounds like a cop-out, but eliminating the incentive for federal agents to chase down a type of crime means those agents effectively won't enforce those laws...because they'll get dinged for wasting time that should be spent on actual priorities. Here's an example of how the federal restriction can still be a pain to Colorado pot stores: > Because pot is still illegal federally, banks will likely continue to refuse marijuana business accounts, employers can continue to fire workers who smoke pot off-the-job and marijuana users who receive federal aid or live in federal housing will remain at risk. IIRC, it wasn't at all uncommon for state residents to think that they could smoke worry free b/c of state legalization, only to realize too late that their employer technically receives federal aid and now had the right to fire them. And even if the the U.S. Attorney General says "nah we probably won't care about that"...a lot of employers are going to err on the side of caution. Since Biden said that he's directed the government to look into things that are on the path to legalization, that mentality is likely to trickle down to every part of the government. Private employers might still be anal though.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- csa 4y ago
  > What are the headaches and how do they solve it? I live in California, where marijuana is legal. The headaches here are that federal police sometimes go bonkers if they find totally minor stuff like edibles or paraphernalia during some sort of inspection or traffic stop that they do on federal land. Oh, easy, just don’t carry anything on federal land. Not so easy. - Any BLM land is federal. Some people take their guns to BLM land for shooting. Better not have any marijuana related stuff on you when you do that (even if you’re just accompanying and not shooting). - Any national park is federal land. - Some local extracurricular activities happen on federal lands. Little league sports teams, Boy Scouts, etc. Again, not that you have to be using at the time, but if you get into an accident at one of these facilities and the federal police sees the state-legal stuff in your car, you can be charged with a federal crime for that. - Any federal building and attached properties like parking lots. For example, if you’re going to the VA to pick up a friend who just had some medical treatment and have an accident, the investigating federal officer can charge you if you have state-legal marijuana goods. - Sometimes you don’t even know when you are on or are traveling through federal land, so you can’t always prepare. For example, the Laguna Seca race track is near (borders on?) federal lands with federal roads and federal police, but the scope of the federal lands is not always clearly marked. So choosing which roads you take to the track determines whether you are breaking the law or not. - Most major airports are federal. As such, even a flight from SFO to LA is supposed to be free of state-legal marijuana. I don’t know how often possession is prosecuted in these situations, but there are enough stories bouncing around that it’s slightly concerning given that, imho, the number of stories should be zero. The solution is to have the message from the top being that they don’t want to see these charges ever in CA and similar stares (waste of time), and any extracurricular behavior like roughing someone up or treating them like a criminal will result in an administrative action against the officer. I doubt this will happen soon. I think the best we can hope for is for prosecutors and senior officers to be consistently dismissive about any low key possession charges that junior officers make.
pessimizer 4y ago
Still outlawed. He's forgiving student debt without doing free college, and pardoning those convicted of simple possession without preventing somebody tomorrow from being arrested for simple possession. Has he made sure that people with drug convictions are eligible for student loans? That seems like a conjunction of the two things that he's half-assed. If he hasn't, there's no one in the administration that actually cares about this, it's just pure midterm pandering. edit: I think this may be what I was looking for: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents//2021/06/17/2021-12762/early-implementation-of-the-fafsa-simplification-acts-removal-of-requirements-for-title-iv https://www.federalregister.gov/documents//2021/06/17/2021-1... > This letter provides information about the early implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act's removal of Selective Service and drug conviction requirements for Title IV eligibility, as well as actions that institutions must take as these changes are implemented in phases across award years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. Certain other aspects of the law being implemented are discussed in separate communications.
- lotu 4y ago
  Given the pardon fully restores all rights I would say yes he has done that. Of course again this only applies to federal convictions
- RavingGoat 4y ago
  Yes, the pardon wipes it off your record.
- weaksauce 4y ago
  he's also moving toward removing it from the classification that would leave it as a scheduled drug federally and urging state govs to legalize it locally.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    Reference por favor
    - weaksauce 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.

by 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.

danso 4y ago
Here's an ancient example from 2013: https://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-wont-block-colorado-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-won... > Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana-legalization laws in the two states. The federal government also will not make it a priority to close down recreational marijuana stores, so long as the stores abide by state regulations, according to the memo. The Attorney General de-prioritizing a crime sounds like a cop-out, but eliminating the incentive for federal agents to chase down a type of crime means those agents effectively won't enforce those laws...because they'll get dinged for wasting time that should be spent on actual priorities. Here's an example of how the federal restriction can still be a pain to Colorado pot stores: > Because pot is still illegal federally, banks will likely continue to refuse marijuana business accounts, employers can continue to fire workers who smoke pot off-the-job and marijuana users who receive federal aid or live in federal housing will remain at risk. IIRC, it wasn't at all uncommon for state residents to think that they could smoke worry free b/c of state legalization, only to realize too late that their employer technically receives federal aid and now had the right to fire them. And even if the the U.S. Attorney General says "nah we probably won't care about that"...a lot of employers are going to err on the side of caution. Since Biden said that he's directed the government to look into things that are on the path to legalization, that mentality is likely to trickle down to every part of the government. Private employers might still be anal though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
csa 4y ago
> What are the headaches and how do they solve it? I live in California, where marijuana is legal. The headaches here are that federal police sometimes go bonkers if they find totally minor stuff like edibles or paraphernalia during some sort of inspection or traffic stop that they do on federal land. Oh, easy, just don’t carry anything on federal land. Not so easy. - Any BLM land is federal. Some people take their guns to BLM land for shooting. Better not have any marijuana related stuff on you when you do that (even if you’re just accompanying and not shooting). - Any national park is federal land. - Some local extracurricular activities happen on federal lands. Little league sports teams, Boy Scouts, etc. Again, not that you have to be using at the time, but if you get into an accident at one of these facilities and the federal police sees the state-legal stuff in your car, you can be charged with a federal crime for that. - Any federal building and attached properties like parking lots. For example, if you’re going to the VA to pick up a friend who just had some medical treatment and have an accident, the investigating federal officer can charge you if you have state-legal marijuana goods. - Sometimes you don’t even know when you are on or are traveling through federal land, so you can’t always prepare. For example, the Laguna Seca race track is near (borders on?) federal lands with federal roads and federal police, but the scope of the federal lands is not always clearly marked. So choosing which roads you take to the track determines whether you are breaking the law or not. - Most major airports are federal. As such, even a flight from SFO to LA is supposed to be free of state-legal marijuana. I don’t know how often possession is prosecuted in these situations, but there are enough stories bouncing around that it’s slightly concerning given that, imho, the number of stories should be zero. The solution is to have the message from the top being that they don’t want to see these charges ever in CA and similar stares (waste of time), and any extracurricular behavior like roughing someone up or treating them like a criminal will result in an administrative action against the officer. I doubt this will happen soon. I think the best we can hope for is for prosecutors and senior officers to be consistently dismissive about any low key possession charges that junior officers make.

pessimizer 4y ago

Still outlawed. He's forgiving student debt without doing free college, and pardoning those convicted of simple possession without preventing somebody tomorrow from being arrested for simple possession. Has he made sure that people with drug convictions are eligible for student loans? That seems like a conjunction of the two things that he's half-assed. If he hasn't, there's no one in the administration that actually cares about this, it's just pure midterm pandering. edit: I think this may be what I was looking for: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents//2021/06/17/2021-12762/early-implementation-of-the-fafsa-simplification-acts-removal-of-requirements-for-title-iv https://www.federalregister.gov/documents//2021/06/17/2021-1... > This letter provides information about the early implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act's removal of Selective Service and drug conviction requirements for Title IV eligibility, as well as actions that institutions must take as these changes are implemented in phases across award years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. Certain other aspects of the law being implemented are discussed in separate communications.

lotu 4y ago
Given the pardon fully restores all rights I would say yes he has done that. Of course again this only applies to federal convictions
RavingGoat 4y ago
Yes, the pardon wipes it off your record.
weaksauce 4y ago
he's also moving toward removing it from the classification that would leave it as a scheduled drug federally and urging state govs to legalize it locally.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  Reference por favor
  - weaksauce 4y ago