6 ms·

Biden pardons marijuana use nationwide

47 points by j4yav 3y ago

ofcourseyoudo 3y ago
It's sad how people predisposed to hate him write it off as "election year pandering" when if he didn't do it he wouldn't be "doing what his constituents want". And on other social media you can see how juvenile people are when they say "why don't you just legalize it".
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
More discussion over on the official Whitehouse post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736919
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Interesting. A good idea, not worth getting a record over. I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- DeIlliad 3y ago
  > I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example. I'm aware of cases like this that happened a long time ago. Domestic abusers who got put away on drug charges because it was easier than the alternatives. I still think this pardon is an overall good thing.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Agreed.
- i80and 3y ago
  Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing. If somebody guilty of a bigger crime is actually released because of this, the AG's prosecutor bears the guilt: it's still the just thing to do.
  - flutas 3y ago
    > Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing. As a counterpoint this may make the justice system pursue larger charges going forward. If a street level dealer was caught, and they offered a plea deal of possession to save time, trial, legal expenses, etc that person will now be pardoned. If the DoJ doesn't like this outcome it could lead to them going after everyone for full charges and basically end plea deals.
    - Volundr 3y ago
      Good. Lots of innocent people are pressured into bullshit plea deals under the threat that they'll be charged for some bigger chrime that the prosecutor doesn't actually have the evidence to prove. If the prosecution has the goods, make them prove it. Otherwise they shouldn't be able to use empty threats to brow beat someone into a guilty plea.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example. Any such person should unquestionably be released.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Easy for us to say, far away from the domestic abuse or child endangerment issue. Armchair justice is so much simpler than the real thing.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      I hope you're not suggesting we lock people up who have not been convicted of a crime.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        I just imagine that the system is not black and white. And again, armchair logic is fine from where we're sitting. Folks may also be harmed by this. I suggest there will be unintended consequences.
        itishappy 3y ago
        Sure. All actions have consequences. Folks may even benefit. Out of all the potential consequences, you're focused on this one. I'm just trying to understand your intent. Are you suggesting alternatives?
        CogitoCogito 3y ago
        The consequence of this decision is that people will be released if their convictions are for these certain crimes. That consequence is absolutely intended.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. If the charge was important and also provable, it should have been charged. And in many cases, the statute of limitation would prevent charging the conduct now, anyway.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger. Yes that is one of the many unintended side effects we will see.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger. Probably not; federally, simple possession of marijuana carries a maximum 1 year sentence and had 145 convictions in 2021, with zero prisoners as of January 2022 in federal custody solely on simple possession of marijuana charges. The impact of this is almost entirely on clearing past records, not releasing current offenders. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impact-simple-possession-marijuana https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Thanks for clarifying that!
teeray 3y ago
I wonder if this has implications on those applying for federal positions with extensive background checks where even one-time use would have been a dealbreaker.
- simple10 3y ago
  That's an interesting hypothesis and seems to make sense. I was also wondering why he would pardon people who were never arrested or detained. Felt a bit dystopian thought crime-esque, but there's likely some sort of logic behind it.
  - simple10 3y ago
    It could also have something to do with military recruitment and passing background checks in advance of a possible recruitment surge for conflict between US and China.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    > I was also wondering why he would pardon people who were never arrested or detained. Felt a bit dystopian thought crime-esque, but there's likely some sort of logic behind it. The logic is preventing you from being arrested tomorrow for your use last month. If he only pardoned those who were already arrested and/or convicted there would be nothing stopping the prosecution of people who just hadn't yet been arrested.
- scarby2 3y ago
  I don't think these positions exist anymore. The CIA says no use 3 months before employment, FBI, Secret Service, NSA are 1 year.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]
bdw5204 3y ago
This comes off as election year pandering but it also probably shouldn't be a crime to begin with. I don't use that particular drug, have never used it and have no desire to use it but I'm fine with it being legal as long as there are some restrictions on where people can use it in public. I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to smoke tobacco and something similar should be done for marijuana. Also, minors should not be allowed to use it just as they aren't allowed to use tobacco or alcohol.
- 0max 3y ago
  Frankly I think Japanese smokers have more freedom because there are designated places to do so. I walked into a Nissan dealership in Ginza just to use the smoking room and was invited to sit inside a special edition GT-R on the way out. When I'm not using those spaces and smoke on the street, I get stopped and frisked (never happens to me in NYC tho as someone who is melanated).
- brutal_chaos_ 3y ago
  > This comes off as election year pandering but it also probably shouldn't be a crime to begin with. Normally I would agree, though this has been a process, not just this quick vote grab. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/biden-pardon-federal-convictions-marijuana-possession-cannabis/8197999001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/bide... Edit to add: The timing of the process is probably for the benefit of votes and the like.
- widowlark 3y ago
  To me, this reply insinuates that we shouldnt give Biden credit for doing this - am I reading into this too much?
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > I don't use that particular drug, have never used it and have no desire to use it but I'm fine with it being legal as long as there are some restrictions on where people can use it in public. I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to smoke tobacco and something similar should be done for marijuana. Also, minors should not be allowed to use it just as they aren't allowed to use tobacco or alcohol. I'm fairly certain that basically all places that have decriminalized/legalized marijuana have such regulations in place.
reso 3y ago
Marijuana criminalization was one of the dumber things about the world I was born into. Liberalization of these laws is one of the things I can point to in my life as being noticable progress. The fact that the state continues to destroy lives over simple drug possession is an ongoing tragedy.
gdsdfe 3y ago
he's really trying hard to get back up in the polls
- zingababba 3y ago
  And off the ground, am I rite.
- pupppet 3y ago
  Strangely a bunch of comments like this on this thread. Politicians doing things to get re-elected is generally how democracy works.
  - gdsdfe 3y ago
    My point is it looks desperate, if he cared about this he would have legalized it nation wide. When he's reaching for the low hanging fruit that's no show of strength
    - ofcourseyoudo 3y ago
      How exactly would he have "legalized" it? Maybe he should have encouraged the HHS to reschedule cannabis sometime last year. I wonder if he did that?
karaterobot 3y ago
> The implication of Biden's pardon promises to have significant implications Sort of a second-order implication, then. In any case, I hope the consequences will be consequential for all those involved.
belltaco 3y ago
> The implication of Biden's pardon promises to have significant implications Why does this sound like a school essay written to pad word count.
underseacables 3y ago
Elections are coming ... Note: This only applies to certain Federal crimes, and in the District of Columbia. Not the states.
- kcplate 3y ago
  “Marijuana users who want to take part in Biden's program will have to follow an application process set by the Department of Justice to receive a certificate confirming that they were pardoned under the president's broader order if they need to provide proof of clemency for employment or housing applications.” Lovingly requires you to register to receive your certificate. Yeah, no thanks.
- fragmede 3y ago
  It's as if the federal government is only in charge of the federal government!

47 points by j4yav 3y ago

It's sad how people predisposed to hate him write it off as "election year pandering" when if he didn't do it he wouldn't be "doing what his constituents want". And on other social media you can see how juvenile people are when they say "why don't you just legalize it".

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

More discussion over on the official Whitehouse post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736919

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Interesting. A good idea, not worth getting a record over. I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DeIlliad 3y ago
> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example. I'm aware of cases like this that happened a long time ago. Domestic abusers who got put away on drug charges because it was easier than the alternatives. I still think this pardon is an overall good thing.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Agreed.
i80and 3y ago
Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing. If somebody guilty of a bigger crime is actually released because of this, the AG's prosecutor bears the guilt: it's still the just thing to do.
- flutas 3y ago
  > Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing. As a counterpoint this may make the justice system pursue larger charges going forward. If a street level dealer was caught, and they offered a plea deal of possession to save time, trial, legal expenses, etc that person will now be pardoned. If the DoJ doesn't like this outcome it could lead to them going after everyone for full charges and basically end plea deals.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    Good. Lots of innocent people are pressured into bullshit plea deals under the threat that they'll be charged for some bigger chrime that the prosecutor doesn't actually have the evidence to prove. If the prosecution has the goods, make them prove it. Otherwise they shouldn't be able to use empty threats to brow beat someone into a guilty plea.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example. Any such person should unquestionably be released.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Easy for us to say, far away from the domestic abuse or child endangerment issue. Armchair justice is so much simpler than the real thing.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    I hope you're not suggesting we lock people up who have not been convicted of a crime.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      I just imagine that the system is not black and white. And again, armchair logic is fine from where we're sitting. Folks may also be harmed by this. I suggest there will be unintended consequences.
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Sure. All actions have consequences. Folks may even benefit. Out of all the potential consequences, you're focused on this one. I'm just trying to understand your intent. Are you suggesting alternatives?
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        The consequence of this decision is that people will be released if their convictions are for these certain crimes. That consequence is absolutely intended.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. If the charge was important and also provable, it should have been charged. And in many cases, the statute of limitation would prevent charging the conduct now, anyway.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger. Yes that is one of the many unintended side effects we will see.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger. Probably not; federally, simple possession of marijuana carries a maximum 1 year sentence and had 145 convictions in 2021, with zero prisoners as of January 2022 in federal custody solely on simple possession of marijuana charges. The impact of this is almost entirely on clearing past records, not releasing current offenders. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impact-simple-possession-marijuana https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Thanks for clarifying that!

teeray 3y ago

I wonder if this has implications on those applying for federal positions with extensive background checks where even one-time use would have been a dealbreaker.

simple10 3y ago
That's an interesting hypothesis and seems to make sense. I was also wondering why he would pardon people who were never arrested or detained. Felt a bit dystopian thought crime-esque, but there's likely some sort of logic behind it.
- simple10 3y ago
  It could also have something to do with military recruitment and passing background checks in advance of a possible recruitment surge for conflict between US and China.
- Volundr 3y ago
  > I was also wondering why he would pardon people who were never arrested or detained. Felt a bit dystopian thought crime-esque, but there's likely some sort of logic behind it. The logic is preventing you from being arrested tomorrow for your use last month. If he only pardoned those who were already arrested and/or convicted there would be nothing stopping the prosecution of people who just hadn't yet been arrested.
scarby2 3y ago
I don't think these positions exist anymore. The CIA says no use 3 months before employment, FBI, Secret Service, NSA are 1 year.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

oldpersonintx 3y ago

[dead]

bdw5204 3y ago

This comes off as election year pandering but it also probably shouldn't be a crime to begin with. I don't use that particular drug, have never used it and have no desire to use it but I'm fine with it being legal as long as there are some restrictions on where people can use it in public. I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to smoke tobacco and something similar should be done for marijuana. Also, minors should not be allowed to use it just as they aren't allowed to use tobacco or alcohol.

0max 3y ago
Frankly I think Japanese smokers have more freedom because there are designated places to do so. I walked into a Nissan dealership in Ginza just to use the smoking room and was invited to sit inside a special edition GT-R on the way out. When I'm not using those spaces and smoke on the street, I get stopped and frisked (never happens to me in NYC tho as someone who is melanated).
brutal_chaos_ 3y ago
> This comes off as election year pandering but it also probably shouldn't be a crime to begin with. Normally I would agree, though this has been a process, not just this quick vote grab. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/biden-pardon-federal-convictions-marijuana-possession-cannabis/8197999001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/bide... Edit to add: The timing of the process is probably for the benefit of votes and the like.
widowlark 3y ago
To me, this reply insinuates that we shouldnt give Biden credit for doing this - am I reading into this too much?
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> I don't use that particular drug, have never used it and have no desire to use it but I'm fine with it being legal as long as there are some restrictions on where people can use it in public. I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to smoke tobacco and something similar should be done for marijuana. Also, minors should not be allowed to use it just as they aren't allowed to use tobacco or alcohol. I'm fairly certain that basically all places that have decriminalized/legalized marijuana have such regulations in place.

reso 3y ago

Marijuana criminalization was one of the dumber things about the world I was born into. Liberalization of these laws is one of the things I can point to in my life as being noticable progress. The fact that the state continues to destroy lives over simple drug possession is an ongoing tragedy.

gdsdfe 3y ago

he's really trying hard to get back up in the polls

zingababba 3y ago
And off the ground, am I rite.
pupppet 3y ago
Strangely a bunch of comments like this on this thread. Politicians doing things to get re-elected is generally how democracy works.
- gdsdfe 3y ago
  My point is it looks desperate, if he cared about this he would have legalized it nation wide. When he's reaching for the low hanging fruit that's no show of strength
  - ofcourseyoudo 3y ago
    How exactly would he have "legalized" it? Maybe he should have encouraged the HHS to reschedule cannabis sometime last year. I wonder if he did that?

karaterobot 3y ago

> The implication of Biden's pardon promises to have significant implications Sort of a second-order implication, then. In any case, I hope the consequences will be consequential for all those involved.

belltaco 3y ago

> The implication of Biden's pardon promises to have significant implications Why does this sound like a school essay written to pad word count.

underseacables 3y ago

Elections are coming ... Note: This only applies to certain Federal crimes, and in the District of Columbia. Not the states.

kcplate 3y ago
“Marijuana users who want to take part in Biden's program will have to follow an application process set by the Department of Justice to receive a certificate confirming that they were pardoned under the president's broader order if they need to provide proof of clemency for employment or housing applications.” Lovingly requires you to register to receive your certificate. Yeah, no thanks.
fragmede 3y ago
It's as if the federal government is only in charge of the federal government!