43 ms·

Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana

323 points by arkadiyt 3y ago

thsksbd 3y ago
Good for them, of course. The cynic in me, however, can help but notice that that's a lot of people whose voting rights have just been restored.
- pseudosavant 3y ago
  And the cynic in me wonders why you think people having their voting rights rightfully restored is bad or suspect?
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    I don't think it's bad. What made you think I think that? I do think our current president is a swine of a human being who cares nothing for others but his immediate family. Evidence for this is that he himself is largely responsible for our draconian drug laws when it suited him politically, and now as his progressive wing is deserting him (for excellent reasons) he's politically motivated to do the right thing in view of an election he'd in a pickle to win. I don't mind people voting rights restored with good reason. I do mind people who use others as a means to an end.
    - pseudosavant 3y ago
      I don't mind people's voting rights being restored for any reason. It is too fundamental of a right to infringe, especially for small things like weed possession. I'm not even convinced we should take felon's voting rights.
- ericcumbee 3y ago
  probably not as many as you may think. If I am reading the federal statutes right simple possession in most cases is a misdemeanor. it also targets the district of columbia which votes so heavily democrat it does not really matter from an electoral perspective.
pavelstoev 3y ago
Say no to drugs.
culi 3y ago
Can someone explain how this differs from the last time Biden "pardoned people for marijuana offenses" in October of 2022?
- nataliste 3y ago
  The election is in a year rather than a month.
actuallyrizzn 3y ago
No one in the feds actually was released from this. Zero people. I was locked up with a guy who spent his whole life from 17 to early 50s (and went blind as a result of medical neglect of his diabetes during) for "conspiracy to distribute" Marijuana, even though he never had any in his possession. Don't fall for this idiocy. Biden is one of the biggest reasons for systemic racism in law enforcement.
tptacek 3y ago
Reminder that Biden can only pardon federal crimes, and that very few people have federal convictions for simple possession.
- kulahan 3y ago
  Smart to do what he unilaterally can considering how stalled things are right now.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    The change still happens within the executive branch - the DEA is in charge of the scheduling of marijuana.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The big limitation here is federal vs. state, not executive vs. legislative. Drug crime clemency isn't stalled in the states.
- vlan0 3y ago
  Exactly. Not many folks catching federal charges for simple possession. trafficking on the other hand.... https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impact-simple-possession-marijuana https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...
- notatoad 3y ago
  >very few people i know it's relatively few people compared to the number of people with state charges, but the reporting on this says it's thousands of people. which, in absolute terms, is a lot of people.
- taneq 3y ago
  Honest question, isn't there a bunch of stuff (including drug stuff) that the local cops don't pursue because it's the feds' job? Or is this just my small random assortment of U.S. crime drama viewing biasing my sample set?
kstrauser 3y ago
I don't use cannabis. If it were to go away tomorrow, my life wouldn't change one bit. I am absolutely thrilled with this blanket pardon. Rephrasing the statement slightly, like: > I am pardoning additional individuals who may continue to experience the unnecessary collateral consequences of a conviction for simple possession of beer, attempted simple possession of beer, or use of beer. and it sounds utterly obvious, and ludicrous that it ever would have been an issue in the first place. I love a good stout or porter, and I can walk into just about any grocery store, flash my ID, hand over some cash, and walk out with a bottle of drugs that's caused far more societal harm than cannabis ever did. That I can drink a beer in public and no one bats an eye, while my neighbors could smoke a joint in their own house and go to jail for it, is insanity. Good on you, Mr. President, for making life better for a whole lot of Americans.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  The counterargument is that these people are punished not for carrying weed, but for breaking the law. The law could say "nobody shall wear a red tshirt", and I think it would then be morally okay to arrest and punish anyone who continues to wear red tshirts. Anyone not okay with the red tshirt law can go get the law changed through the usual democratic process. But if they just ignore the law and wear a red tshirt anyway, then punish them.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    So you don't consider civil disobedience to be an appropriate way to agitate for change?
- firecraker 3y ago
  Does something else being worse (alcohol) but acceptable mean that an alternative (cannabis) should be acceptable? If alcohol was not already widely (ab)used in a county would they be wrong to prohibit it? (Note not meant in any form of malice, intended as probing questions for discussion)
  - kstrauser 3y ago
atticora 3y ago
That's a good start Joe, keep going. The scope of the president's pardon power is breathtaking. ([T]he power [of clemency] flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments, and . . . it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress.). -- -20Garland, 71 U.S. at 380; see also Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974) If Trump wins he apparently can pardon everyone with a federal Jan6 conviction at will, with no review and as a second term president, no voters to answer to. That is motivating to both sides. Only the election can tell which side has gained more from the reaction to the events.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > If Trump wins he apparently can pardon everyone with a federal Jan6 conviction at will, with no review and as a second term president, no voters to answer to. Add on top of that the insider allegations of Trump selling pardons for 2 million $ apiece [1], and the list of ... sometimes really questionable pardons that were issued [2], and it becomes a real issue of national security. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-accused-offering-sell-trump-pardons-2-million-new-lawsuit-rcna84569 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-accu... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-pardons-commutations-list/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-pardons-co...
  - tdba 3y ago
    Unethical pardons on the last day in office is a Presidential tradition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
- adonovan 3y ago
  But only for convictions by Federal, not state, courts. That's one of the reasons the Georgia case against Trump is interesting.
codexb 3y ago
This will have virtually zero effect. The president only has the power to pardon people convicted or accused of violating federal law and prosecuted in federal court. The problem is that nearly all people arrested for simple possession of marijuana aren't charged under federal law nor prosecuted in federal court. They are charged under state law that similarly outlaws marijuana possession and prosecuted in state court. The president does not have the power to pardon convictions and punishment in state court.
- _8j50 3y ago
  > The president only has the power to pardon people convicted or accused of violating federal law and prosecuted in federal court. The president can pardon any offense against the united states except impeachment. State offenses have always been left to governors to pardon but states are what make the united states and as such state offenses while violating only state law, they are an offense against a state that is part of the union and affect a citizen of the union, as such the president has ulitmate power to pardon. This is similar to how state legal dispute or prosecution can ultimately be decided by the supreme court of the united states. It does not stop at the state's supreme court. If trump gets elected next year for example, he can pardon himself of his upcoming likely conviction in georgia. Else you have a situation where in 2028 as soon as he leaves office he becomes a wanted criminal. Presidents know that pardoning a stare criminal is overriding state law and alienating voters from that state and risking rifts in the union. I believe the president supersedes state governors in every power they have except things like appointments and firings at the state level.
  - elcritch 3y ago
    According to https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Does%20the%20President%20have%20authority,%3A%20“The%20President%20.%20.%20 https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~.... > Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction? No. The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses
zdragnar 3y ago
I don't disagree that this is good for those involved or affected. However, nothing stops the same from happening to someone tomorrow. The past several administrations have been relying too heavily on executive fiat for the optics. The DEA needs to reschedule it. Anything else is at best a band-aid, if not simple lip service to buy votes.
- theklr 3y ago
  Rumor is it’s a done deal and they’re just weaponizing it for the election. I despise this is where we’ve come in political theater.
  - kredd 3y ago
    Would the House ever pass it as it would give a huge win to one side? A bit unaware in terms of US politics, but up here since legalization, life is exactly as it was before — people who smoked just continue to smoke but legally, people who don’t… don’t.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      DEA is not controlled by the house.
      - kibwen 3y ago
        Marijuana cannot be legalized without an act of Congress. The executive branch could always just stop enforcing the laws passed by the legislative branch, but I thought we wanted less executive overreach.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Marijuana cannot be legalized without an act of Congress. Marijuana can be rescheduled without an act of Congress; what is on the table is not full legalization (which, AFAIK, could also be done within the executive, because IIRC drugs can be descheduled by the same process for rescheduling) but rescheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III. And by "on the table", I mean the first step -- FDA recommendation to DEA -- has already been done.
masfuerte 3y ago
It seems weird that it excludes foreign nationals who are no longer resident. Why not just pardon everyone who was convicted?
- tessierashpool 3y ago
  the law is always complicated
  - u32480932048 3y ago
    "because reasons" isn't actually a good justification for a system that's broken and corrupted beyond all repair
    - tessierashpool 3y ago
      not what I said, but I will rephrase for you. the law is inherently always complicated, because it, by definition, must provide general and categorical solutions to a wide range of particular instances.
    - taneq 3y ago
      No but "because 27 pages of boring and annoying backstory which are logically consistent but result in an outcome you don't like for seemingly arbitrary reasons" is potentially a good justification even if it sucks and is boring and tl;dr. You wouldn't argue that a mathematical proof is more than 2 pages long and therefore doesn't count, right?
    - jmye 3y ago
      Do you generally assume anything potentially complicated, or anything that hasn't been specifically explained to you, is automatically specious?
      - u32480932048 3y ago
        It depends on whether you're talking about an instruction manual for a nuclear power plant or thousands of pages of legal nonsense. I find higher truth value in short, simple statements like "I'm innocent as shown on the cameras" than I do when Alan Dershowitz gets on the evening news to wax poetic/philosophical about what the notion of "guilty" really means.
swayvil 3y ago
[flagged]
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] Merge, or some more over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736184
djha-skin 3y ago
I didn't know blanket pardons were legal. Kind of feels like he's on shaky ground here. If this were allowed then all future presidents could veto in perpetuity any criminal law created by Congress. Speaking of which, his pardon only pardons those who have violated federal or DC laws, not state laws.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  I mean, they have been. Trump pardoned so many people in his last few weeks.
- tptacek 3y ago
  There is a long history of blanket pardons, isn't there?
- Digory 3y ago
  Yes, this seems like a constitutional test. If you need this pardon to stand up, you'd better get the certificate from the WH pardon lawyer with your name on it.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    Jimmy Carter did the same almost half a century ago by granting a blanket pardon to Vietnam war draft dodgers, and all of them have lived to a ripe old age without being taken to court to test the pardon.
sparrish 3y ago
This only applies to federal "possession or use", which nearly never happens. Those convicted of "possession or use" are nearly 100% plea down cases when the actual offense was sales, distribution, or manufacturing.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  > Those convicted of "possession or use" are nearly 100% plea down cases when the actual offense was sales, distribution, or manufacturing. Not true at all - guess what charge you catch if you are caught smoking on a chairlift at a ski resort on Federal land or if you're on a hike in a National park. Thousands of people every year; https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/09/16/marijuana-busts-on-federal-lands-highlight-challenges-for-pot-friendly-states/ https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/09/16/marijuana-busts-on-fe...
- riffic 3y ago
  it used to happen a lot, and this also applies to the district of columbia.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Essentially none of those people are still in prison.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      And if this was merely a commutation, that would matter more. But pardons don't just end sentences, they remove all lasting legal impacts of the conviction.
    - riffic 3y ago
      but with a record can they get jobs, pass a background check, et cetera? This pardon is a good thing, why are we discussing it like it's not a move in the right direction?
      - 3y ago
pengaru 3y ago
Symbolic half-measure having little to no actual impact. They should just legalize marijuana federally, that would be real change with tangible consequences. This is shallow campaigning for reelection, in lieu of actual legalization.
- feoren 3y ago
  Nobody should ever fix anything unless they can fix everything!
  - pengaru 3y ago
    > Nobody should ever fix anything unless they can fix everything! Oh please. "Fix everything" in this context would be legalizing all drugs federally. This fixes nothing except perhaps shifting some public perception in the minds of voters that don't look past the headlines.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Pretty sure the people getting pardoned like it.
ramesh31 3y ago
Missouri and Ohio have both legalized recreational home cultivation in the last year; the first two red states to do so. Hard to overstate what an achievement that is. Prohibition is more or less over at this point, outside of the deep red south.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Having grown up in Missouri, you could have knocked me over with a feather when that happened. They what?!
  - helmor 3y ago
    From Ohio. Can't speak for Missouri, but the reality here is that like most states, it's a rural-urban divide more than a "the whole state is red." Ohio has a solid red majority, especially in the legislature, but the cities are very blue and there are plenty of moderates. So I think those groups passed it, but you could see the conservative legislators were none too happy about it and were going to fight implementation tooth and nail, just like they'd like to do with abortion protections. There is sadly a pretty strong division as with many issues in this country, but enough of a majority to move the needle at least.
maerF0x0 3y ago
One moral risk we play is does legalizing our recreational drug (eg alcohol/cannibis) increase the harm done to addicts[0]? While I maintain that there's a logical inconsistency to having legal alcohol and illegal cannabis, I'm on the fence if the consistency should be that both are somehow controlled/illegal (though absolutely not criminal). Another thought on the subject is how many small charges were simply because the police were fairly sure the defendant was up to some other crime, but were unable to make a court case over it (due to difficulty of evidence etc)? It may be that it was hard to prove the accused was doing X, but the bag of weed in their pocket was undeniable... Just musings don't get too aflame over them... [0]: https://www.newsweek.com/americas-heaviest-drinkers-consume-almost-60-all-alcohol-sold-1520284 https://www.newsweek.com/americas-heaviest-drinkers-consume-...
- lokar 3y ago
  Along that line of thinking, if you prohibit alcohol and cannabis (and I assume tobacco?) to protect addicts, what about casino gambling? How about micro-transaction games that are gambling in all but name?
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    I mean those should actually be prohibited.
- Dolototo 3y ago
  It's not logical to solve any drug problem by making it illegal. Illegal means that we don't want people to help, it means we don't want them to do something between don't like it. Otherwise it doesn't make sense that the result is jail as jail is for punishment (it shouldn't) and not for rehabilitation.
- proto-n 3y ago
  Your argument about marijuana being easier to prove is a very bad scenario, regardless of how common it is/used to be. By the same logic why not make it illegal to wear socks, it would provide reason for the system to punish anybody they are 'fairly sure' is up to some other crime.
wonderwonder 3y ago
Its macabre that I can walk into a nice clean store and get personalized service to buy something that thousands are sitting in prison for.
- grecy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - maxiepoo 3y ago
    It is very bad that abortion is illegal but thousands of people have not been imprisoned for violating abortion laws afaik.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    I hear what you are saying but I think the abortion issue is a little more complex than possession / use of cannabis.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Is anyone actually in prison for abortion?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  That is fairly wild when you phrase it like that. Especially as you could literally be 100ft from someone getting cuffs put on who is across the border in another state, while you are getting gold treatment in a dispensary trying to figure out what strain you want.
winter_blue 3y ago
[flagged]
127361 3y ago
About time. Finally the harm caused by possession offenses is starting to be recognized by the state. If they want to ban drugs in general, then they should prosecute those supplying it and those producing it for sale. Not private individuals consuming it in their own homes, and causing absolutely no harm to anyone. And those who are consuming it in public while presenting a danger to others, that can be made illegal. Failing that, they can outright ban public consumption.
- bluish29 3y ago
  > Not private individuals consuming it in their own homes, and causing absolutely no harm to anyone Considering that there is -at least- a correlation between substance abuse and domestic abuse [1,2]. I wouldn't be so sure to say "absolutely no harm" in this case. [1] https://www.gov1.com/public-health/articles/the-link-between-domestic-violence-and-substance-abuse-2vHeS0cs20IdzGZz/ https://www.gov1.com/public-health/articles/the-link-between... [2] https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/5/1035/5486457 https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/5/1035/5486457
  - 127361 3y ago
    I meant individuals living on their own in that case. By all means increase the penalties for the abuse if it's proven to be fueled by drugs.
    - bluish29 3y ago
      That's fair, that's an edge case of the law but probably is not the general trend.
dilippkumar 3y ago
As an immigrant, this stood out to me: > ... I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who ... > ... This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense. In the first of the above, it specifically states that it applies to citizens and lawful permanent residents. In the second, it says it does not apply to people who didn't have valid immigration status. So, what happens to someone who had a valid immigration status, but was not a lawful permanent resident? For example, someone on a student or a tourist visa? Can anyone with legal expertise shed some light on how such things are usually resolved? My naive expectation would be that it still would only apply to citizens and lawful permanent residents. But then, why specifically call out that it doesn't apply to this specific group out of many other groups that aren't covered under "citizens or lawful permanent residents"?
- leviathant 3y ago
  >So, what happens to someone who had a valid immigration status, but was not a lawful permanent resident? For example, someone on a student or a tourist visa? I brought my wife over on the 90 day fiancee visa well before there was a TV show about it, and mostly because it was the only way we could hang out. Thankfully we lucked out, and celebrated our 20th anniversary earlier this year. But to the point: When you're dealing with DHS and immigration, it's made absolutely clear that if you screw anything up, you're kicked out of the country and it's going to be a ballache to get back in. It's not surprising that they were not included in the blanket pardon, and I think that's actually pretty reasonable, even though I also think that incarceration over marijuana possession is absurd and has been pretty devastating to the lives of millions of people and the communities they live in. The amount of work you have to do to qualify for a visa, and to move between the different statuses (there are fun periods where your status is just... pending. When we went through this, there was nothing you have to show for this except for a generic looking letter from DHS. All your fancy documentation is sitting in a US Gov't inbox somewhere while they make sure you're not a terrorist) and, frankly, if you manage to get arrested for smoking weed while you're on a visa, you're kind of an idiot. We didn't even travel outside the country until my wife got her full-fledged citizenship. And when she applied for that, they gave her a hard time over the speeding tickets she'd gotten while here. Whether you agree with the concept or not, visitors to the country are told pretty clearly that the rules apply extra hard to them, and the consequences of not following very basic rules are going to be extra inconvenient. You get caught breaking the law, you risk losing your visa status and losing the ability to ever visit the country again.
didgeoridoo 3y ago
For reference, as of January 2022 there were ZERO people in federal custody solely for simple possession of marijuana[0]. As a gesture, this seems fine. But the continued presence of cannabis on Schedule I makes an absolute mockery out of our entire code of laws. [0]: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impact-simple-possession-marijuana https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...
- sakopov 3y ago
  > Just over 300 people — or 0.5% of the total prison population — are behind bars for any sort of drug possession. [1] If anything it'll help some folks to have a their records cleaned up. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-wont-free-many-currently-in-federal-prison-2022-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won...
  - crtified 3y ago
    I agree with your point. But the quoted statistic is confusing. Under what specifics would 300 people = 0.5% of the total prison population? As I understand it, the total prison population of the USA is over 1 million, and the subset designated 'federal prisoners' is, by itself, over 200,000.
    - hedora 3y ago
      That 0.5% figure is wrong. It’s closer to 20%. (350,000 people) Here is a write up of many prisoner stats from 2023. See slideshow 3: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html Note that terminology in this space is very important and subtle. 7 million people are arrested each year, and > 600K are sent to prison, but the total number of people in prison (and number that are incarcerated one way or another) is much lower than those numbers suggest. The total incarcerated population is about 1.75 million.
      - d0mine 3y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Hot take- I don't use cannabis and I like that cannabis use disqualifies a lot of my competitors in the job market.
drevil-v2 3y ago
At university two of my friends went down a dark road with Marijuana use. One destroyed his very bright future - went from a top student to a dropout. The other one had severe mental psychosis episodes, the last one being where he physically threatened other students with a knife and was arrested and subsequently medically repatriated back to his home country - his parents were financially ruined by the cost of getting him home. I am not sure that this is as black and white as some people make it out to be. Complete freedom to do whatever one pleases is not Utopia. There is a limit if one wants a functioning society that is on the whole safe and high trust.
- cozzyd 3y ago
  Yes, while with alcohol, nobody has ruined their future or physically threatened others.
- joquarky 3y ago
  Utopia is not achievable, and the path to hell is laid with good intentions. > There is a limit if one wants a functioning society that is on the whole safe and high trust. We all have different thresholds on where that limit lies. In the film Demolition Man, Dr. Raymond Cocteau's vision of a safe San Angeles did not allow sports, swearing, eating meat, or consuming sugar or caffeine because they are "bad" for you.
akomtu 3y ago
This proclamation has essentially freed slaves held by the prison complex, and I bet it will try to claw back an equal amount on inmates by other means in the coming years. Maybe DUI and traffic laws will become harsher.
pyuser583 3y ago
I live in an area where private consumption is de facto legal. A neighbor of mine would smoke weed constantly. A young woman would come to his apartment every month or so. He would open the door, invite her in, and she would refuse. They would talk at the door for about five minutes while marijuana smoke drifted into the hall. Then she’d leave. One day I asked she was his daughter, she said laughed and said, “No, I’m his parole officer!” So it’s pretty legal for indoors purposes. But - it’s not de facto legal in public. This is a big issue in public parks. Nobody wants their kids to share a park with potheads. Same applies for alcohol and tobacco. I’m fine with legalizing pot under the same conditions as alcohol - in your residence, buying from authorized dealers, high taxes, review boards, etc. But just look at the high number of alcohol related crimes. Not just drunk driving, but public intoxication too. Don’t expect legality pot to make the illegal uses go away. People will stop buy from illegal dealers, which will continue to be prosecuted (they don’t pay taxes). It won’t do much good or harm.
- cheeze 3y ago
  > Nobody wants their kids to share a park with potheads I see this as no different than alcohol or tobacco (which you also called out) Growing up and not having a place to smoke, we'd always go to a park. But we'd go deep into the woods, etc. last thing we wanted to do was inconvenience someone else, leading to us getting caught. Same is true of when we drank booze. No need to do it in front of a family.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    I’m talking about parks I can’t take my family to because of how much drinking and pot smoking is going on - not kids smoking the middle of the forest. The police give warnings, then only after a thousand warning give tickets. But at the end of the day, these parks are not usable because of “partying.” When I had kids I took pride in living in a lower income neighborhood. I didn’t want to be part of “white flight.” But park problem went from being a nuisance to a big problem when COVID hit. Parks were one of the only places kids could go. Now the kids are older I’m looking forward to leaving the soulless suburbs where all houses look the same. But public drinking and drug use made the public spaces in lower income neighborhoods unusable. Legalizing pot won’t help or hurt at all. But some people with convictions for possession deserve to have a light and temporary black mark on their record.
shipscode 3y ago
Do guns next.
- thelastgallon 3y ago
  Isn't possession of guns already legal?
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Much like The adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer had no long term downsides and "fixed" the Ozone hole [1], this action is an unequivocal good and there are no long term downsides from my perspective. [1]https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone...
fyrn_ 3y ago
This pardon applies only to federal possession and use sentences, still a nice gesture, but it's a small percentage of convictions as federal prosecution of these charges is rare. More important for it's symbolic effects then for the actual direct results
- al_borland 3y ago
  I don’t get how there can be a blanket pardon on the books for federal crimes, while still being illegal at a federal level. The pardon should have come along with legalization, and putting it on the same level as alcohol. The current situation feels ridiculous.
  - fyrn_ 3y ago
    This pardon applies to convictions that existed at the time of the pardon, it's not automatically applied to future convictions. This power comes from the presidential right to pardon, it's not the ability to disable a law while they are in office. In theory it could be used for that, however the president would have to pardon each time.
torstenvl 3y ago
I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon. It's very frustrating. Violations under Article 112a, UCMJ, solely for use of marijuana, should also be included.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon. Nothing in the text of the pardon does that is "singling out" veterans. It doesn't pardon UCMJ violations, but it absolutely includes military veterans with federal civilian convictions (unless they were in unsatisfactory immigration status at the time of the offense.) Not including military offenses is a different thing than singling out veterans.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    Fine. I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans with military convictions not to receive this pardon. It's significant disparate treatment in a way that precludes a significant benefit from going to a group of people of whom 100% have served this country. EDIT: And no, Parker v. Levy is not a valid justification for this, as the conduct was equally criminalized in both the military and the civilian world. Furthermore, Parker v. Levy and related cases are only relevant on what is lawful to make different in the military justice system, not what is good policy. Nobody is saying the President cannot exercise the pardon power in a way that discriminates against military members; the pardon power is plenary. I am saying he shouldn't.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans with military convictions not to receive this pardon. There's a fairly consistent throughline in the theory of the law (that gets to the reason there even is a UCMJ in the first place) that military discipline is categorically distinct from civilian criminal law, and under that theory possession of marijuana contrary to military regulations is meaningfully distinct from simple possession in the civilian context. Its also, to be fair, pretty clear that, clear and crisp as the theory may be, in practice that's more of a statistical difference in significance than a categorical one. But even a statistical difference can, arguably, justify the normal case-by-case approach to clemency rather than a blanket approach.
gregsher88 3y ago
"As I have said before, convictions for simple possession of marijuana have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities." This has always seemed like cruel and unusual punishment to me. Effectively a life sentence for misdemeanor crimes. This is a good first step, but it does not go far enough.
rabbits_2002 3y ago
this is all just for show until they legalize it. Biden has been on record saying he wont, and there are very, very few federal convictions. I don’t know why the government is so hell-bent on arresting teenagers and giving free money to cartels.

323 points by arkadiyt 3y ago

Good for them, of course. The cynic in me, however, can help but notice that that's a lot of people whose voting rights have just been restored.

pseudosavant 3y ago
And the cynic in me wonders why you think people having their voting rights rightfully restored is bad or suspect?
- thsksbd 3y ago
  I don't think it's bad. What made you think I think that? I do think our current president is a swine of a human being who cares nothing for others but his immediate family. Evidence for this is that he himself is largely responsible for our draconian drug laws when it suited him politically, and now as his progressive wing is deserting him (for excellent reasons) he's politically motivated to do the right thing in view of an election he'd in a pickle to win. I don't mind people voting rights restored with good reason. I do mind people who use others as a means to an end.
  - pseudosavant 3y ago
    I don't mind people's voting rights being restored for any reason. It is too fundamental of a right to infringe, especially for small things like weed possession. I'm not even convinced we should take felon's voting rights.
ericcumbee 3y ago
probably not as many as you may think. If I am reading the federal statutes right simple possession in most cases is a misdemeanor. it also targets the district of columbia which votes so heavily democrat it does not really matter from an electoral perspective.

pavelstoev 3y ago

Say no to drugs.

culi 3y ago

Can someone explain how this differs from the last time Biden "pardoned people for marijuana offenses" in October of 2022?

nataliste 3y ago
The election is in a year rather than a month.

actuallyrizzn 3y ago

No one in the feds actually was released from this. Zero people. I was locked up with a guy who spent his whole life from 17 to early 50s (and went blind as a result of medical neglect of his diabetes during) for "conspiracy to distribute" Marijuana, even though he never had any in his possession. Don't fall for this idiocy. Biden is one of the biggest reasons for systemic racism in law enforcement.

tptacek 3y ago

Reminder that Biden can only pardon federal crimes, and that very few people have federal convictions for simple possession.

kulahan 3y ago
Smart to do what he unilaterally can considering how stalled things are right now.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  The change still happens within the executive branch - the DEA is in charge of the scheduling of marijuana.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The big limitation here is federal vs. state, not executive vs. legislative. Drug crime clemency isn't stalled in the states.
vlan0 3y ago
Exactly. Not many folks catching federal charges for simple possession. trafficking on the other hand.... https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impact-simple-possession-marijuana https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...
notatoad 3y ago
>very few people i know it's relatively few people compared to the number of people with state charges, but the reporting on this says it's thousands of people. which, in absolute terms, is a lot of people.
taneq 3y ago
Honest question, isn't there a bunch of stuff (including drug stuff) that the local cops don't pursue because it's the feds' job? Or is this just my small random assortment of U.S. crime drama viewing biasing my sample set?

kstrauser 3y ago

I don't use cannabis. If it were to go away tomorrow, my life wouldn't change one bit. I am absolutely thrilled with this blanket pardon. Rephrasing the statement slightly, like: > I am pardoning additional individuals who may continue to experience the unnecessary collateral consequences of a conviction for simple possession of beer, attempted simple possession of beer, or use of beer. and it sounds utterly obvious, and ludicrous that it ever would have been an issue in the first place. I love a good stout or porter, and I can walk into just about any grocery store, flash my ID, hand over some cash, and walk out with a bottle of drugs that's caused far more societal harm than cannabis ever did. That I can drink a beer in public and no one bats an eye, while my neighbors could smoke a joint in their own house and go to jail for it, is insanity. Good on you, Mr. President, for making life better for a whole lot of Americans.

londons_explore 3y ago
The counterargument is that these people are punished not for carrying weed, but for breaking the law. The law could say "nobody shall wear a red tshirt", and I think it would then be morally okay to arrest and punish anyone who continues to wear red tshirts. Anyone not okay with the red tshirt law can go get the law changed through the usual democratic process. But if they just ignore the law and wear a red tshirt anyway, then punish them.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  So you don't consider civil disobedience to be an appropriate way to agitate for change?
firecraker 3y ago
Does something else being worse (alcohol) but acceptable mean that an alternative (cannabis) should be acceptable? If alcohol was not already widely (ab)used in a county would they be wrong to prohibit it? (Note not meant in any form of malice, intended as probing questions for discussion)
- kstrauser 3y ago

atticora 3y ago

That's a good start Joe, keep going. The scope of the president's pardon power is breathtaking. ([T]he power [of clemency] flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments, and . . . it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress.). -- -20Garland, 71 U.S. at 380; see also Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974) If Trump wins he apparently can pardon everyone with a federal Jan6 conviction at will, with no review and as a second term president, no voters to answer to. That is motivating to both sides. Only the election can tell which side has gained more from the reaction to the events.

mschuster91 3y ago
> If Trump wins he apparently can pardon everyone with a federal Jan6 conviction at will, with no review and as a second term president, no voters to answer to. Add on top of that the insider allegations of Trump selling pardons for 2 million $ apiece [1], and the list of ... sometimes really questionable pardons that were issued [2], and it becomes a real issue of national security. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-accused-offering-sell-trump-pardons-2-million-new-lawsuit-rcna84569 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-accu... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-pardons-commutations-list/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-pardons-co...
- tdba 3y ago
  Unethical pardons on the last day in office is a Presidential tradition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
adonovan 3y ago
But only for convictions by Federal, not state, courts. That's one of the reasons the Georgia case against Trump is interesting.

codexb 3y ago

This will have virtually zero effect. The president only has the power to pardon people convicted or accused of violating federal law and prosecuted in federal court. The problem is that nearly all people arrested for simple possession of marijuana aren't charged under federal law nor prosecuted in federal court. They are charged under state law that similarly outlaws marijuana possession and prosecuted in state court. The president does not have the power to pardon convictions and punishment in state court.

_8j50 3y ago
> The president only has the power to pardon people convicted or accused of violating federal law and prosecuted in federal court. The president can pardon any offense against the united states except impeachment. State offenses have always been left to governors to pardon but states are what make the united states and as such state offenses while violating only state law, they are an offense against a state that is part of the union and affect a citizen of the union, as such the president has ulitmate power to pardon. This is similar to how state legal dispute or prosecution can ultimately be decided by the supreme court of the united states. It does not stop at the state's supreme court. If trump gets elected next year for example, he can pardon himself of his upcoming likely conviction in georgia. Else you have a situation where in 2028 as soon as he leaves office he becomes a wanted criminal. Presidents know that pardoning a stare criminal is overriding state law and alienating voters from that state and risking rifts in the union. I believe the president supersedes state governors in every power they have except things like appointments and firings at the state level.
- elcritch 3y ago
  According to https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Does%20the%20President%20have%20authority,%3A%20“The%20President%20.%20.%20 https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~.... > Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction? No. The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses

zdragnar 3y ago

I don't disagree that this is good for those involved or affected. However, nothing stops the same from happening to someone tomorrow. The past several administrations have been relying too heavily on executive fiat for the optics. The DEA needs to reschedule it. Anything else is at best a band-aid, if not simple lip service to buy votes.

theklr 3y ago
Rumor is it’s a done deal and they’re just weaponizing it for the election. I despise this is where we’ve come in political theater.
- kredd 3y ago
  Would the House ever pass it as it would give a huge win to one side? A bit unaware in terms of US politics, but up here since legalization, life is exactly as it was before — people who smoked just continue to smoke but legally, people who don’t… don’t.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    DEA is not controlled by the house.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      Marijuana cannot be legalized without an act of Congress. The executive branch could always just stop enforcing the laws passed by the legislative branch, but I thought we wanted less executive overreach.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Marijuana cannot be legalized without an act of Congress. Marijuana can be rescheduled without an act of Congress; what is on the table is not full legalization (which, AFAIK, could also be done within the executive, because IIRC drugs can be descheduled by the same process for rescheduling) but rescheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III. And by "on the table", I mean the first step -- FDA recommendation to DEA -- has already been done.

masfuerte 3y ago

It seems weird that it excludes foreign nationals who are no longer resident. Why not just pardon everyone who was convicted?

tessierashpool 3y ago
the law is always complicated
- u32480932048 3y ago
  "because reasons" isn't actually a good justification for a system that's broken and corrupted beyond all repair
  - tessierashpool 3y ago
    not what I said, but I will rephrase for you. the law is inherently always complicated, because it, by definition, must provide general and categorical solutions to a wide range of particular instances.
  - taneq 3y ago
    No but "because 27 pages of boring and annoying backstory which are logically consistent but result in an outcome you don't like for seemingly arbitrary reasons" is potentially a good justification even if it sucks and is boring and tl;dr. You wouldn't argue that a mathematical proof is more than 2 pages long and therefore doesn't count, right?
  - jmye 3y ago
    Do you generally assume anything potentially complicated, or anything that hasn't been specifically explained to you, is automatically specious?
    - u32480932048 3y ago
      It depends on whether you're talking about an instruction manual for a nuclear power plant or thousands of pages of legal nonsense. I find higher truth value in short, simple statements like "I'm innocent as shown on the cameras" than I do when Alan Dershowitz gets on the evening news to wax poetic/philosophical about what the notion of "guilty" really means.

swayvil 3y ago

[flagged]

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] Merge, or some more over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736184

djha-skin 3y ago

I didn't know blanket pardons were legal. Kind of feels like he's on shaky ground here. If this were allowed then all future presidents could veto in perpetuity any criminal law created by Congress. Speaking of which, his pardon only pardons those who have violated federal or DC laws, not state laws.

aaomidi 3y ago
I mean, they have been. Trump pardoned so many people in his last few weeks.
tptacek 3y ago
There is a long history of blanket pardons, isn't there?
Digory 3y ago
Yes, this seems like a constitutional test. If you need this pardon to stand up, you'd better get the certificate from the WH pardon lawyer with your name on it.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Jimmy Carter did the same almost half a century ago by granting a blanket pardon to Vietnam war draft dodgers, and all of them have lived to a ripe old age without being taken to court to test the pardon.

sparrish 3y ago

This only applies to federal "possession or use", which nearly never happens. Those convicted of "possession or use" are nearly 100% plea down cases when the actual offense was sales, distribution, or manufacturing.

mikeyouse 3y ago
> Those convicted of "possession or use" are nearly 100% plea down cases when the actual offense was sales, distribution, or manufacturing. Not true at all - guess what charge you catch if you are caught smoking on a chairlift at a ski resort on Federal land or if you're on a hike in a National park. Thousands of people every year; https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/09/16/marijuana-busts-on-federal-lands-highlight-challenges-for-pot-friendly-states/ https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/09/16/marijuana-busts-on-fe...
riffic 3y ago
it used to happen a lot, and this also applies to the district of columbia.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Essentially none of those people are still in prison.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    And if this was merely a commutation, that would matter more. But pardons don't just end sentences, they remove all lasting legal impacts of the conviction.
  - riffic 3y ago
    but with a record can they get jobs, pass a background check, et cetera? This pardon is a good thing, why are we discussing it like it's not a move in the right direction?
    - 3y ago

pengaru 3y ago

Symbolic half-measure having little to no actual impact. They should just legalize marijuana federally, that would be real change with tangible consequences. This is shallow campaigning for reelection, in lieu of actual legalization.

feoren 3y ago
Nobody should ever fix anything unless they can fix everything!
- pengaru 3y ago
  > Nobody should ever fix anything unless they can fix everything! Oh please. "Fix everything" in this context would be legalizing all drugs federally. This fixes nothing except perhaps shifting some public perception in the minds of voters that don't look past the headlines.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Pretty sure the people getting pardoned like it.

ramesh31 3y ago

Missouri and Ohio have both legalized recreational home cultivation in the last year; the first two red states to do so. Hard to overstate what an achievement that is. Prohibition is more or less over at this point, outside of the deep red south.

kstrauser 3y ago
Having grown up in Missouri, you could have knocked me over with a feather when that happened. They what?!
- helmor 3y ago
  From Ohio. Can't speak for Missouri, but the reality here is that like most states, it's a rural-urban divide more than a "the whole state is red." Ohio has a solid red majority, especially in the legislature, but the cities are very blue and there are plenty of moderates. So I think those groups passed it, but you could see the conservative legislators were none too happy about it and were going to fight implementation tooth and nail, just like they'd like to do with abortion protections. There is sadly a pretty strong division as with many issues in this country, but enough of a majority to move the needle at least.

maerF0x0 3y ago

One moral risk we play is does legalizing our recreational drug (eg alcohol/cannibis) increase the harm done to addicts[0]? While I maintain that there's a logical inconsistency to having legal alcohol and illegal cannabis, I'm on the fence if the consistency should be that both are somehow controlled/illegal (though absolutely not criminal). Another thought on the subject is how many small charges were simply because the police were fairly sure the defendant was up to some other crime, but were unable to make a court case over it (due to difficulty of evidence etc)? It may be that it was hard to prove the accused was doing X, but the bag of weed in their pocket was undeniable... Just musings don't get too aflame over them... [0]: https://www.newsweek.com/americas-heaviest-drinkers-consume-almost-60-all-alcohol-sold-1520284 https://www.newsweek.com/americas-heaviest-drinkers-consume-...

lokar 3y ago
Along that line of thinking, if you prohibit alcohol and cannabis (and I assume tobacco?) to protect addicts, what about casino gambling? How about micro-transaction games that are gambling in all but name?
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I mean those should actually be prohibited.
Dolototo 3y ago
It's not logical to solve any drug problem by making it illegal. Illegal means that we don't want people to help, it means we don't want them to do something between don't like it. Otherwise it doesn't make sense that the result is jail as jail is for punishment (it shouldn't) and not for rehabilitation.
proto-n 3y ago
Your argument about marijuana being easier to prove is a very bad scenario, regardless of how common it is/used to be. By the same logic why not make it illegal to wear socks, it would provide reason for the system to punish anybody they are 'fairly sure' is up to some other crime.

wonderwonder 3y ago

Its macabre that I can walk into a nice clean store and get personalized service to buy something that thousands are sitting in prison for.

grecy 3y ago
[flagged]
- maxiepoo 3y ago
  It is very bad that abortion is illegal but thousands of people have not been imprisoned for violating abortion laws afaik.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  I hear what you are saying but I think the abortion issue is a little more complex than possession / use of cannabis.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Is anyone actually in prison for abortion?
qingcharles 3y ago
That is fairly wild when you phrase it like that. Especially as you could literally be 100ft from someone getting cuffs put on who is across the border in another state, while you are getting gold treatment in a dispensary trying to figure out what strain you want.

winter_blue 3y ago

[flagged]

127361 3y ago

About time. Finally the harm caused by possession offenses is starting to be recognized by the state. If they want to ban drugs in general, then they should prosecute those supplying it and those producing it for sale. Not private individuals consuming it in their own homes, and causing absolutely no harm to anyone. And those who are consuming it in public while presenting a danger to others, that can be made illegal. Failing that, they can outright ban public consumption.

bluish29 3y ago
> Not private individuals consuming it in their own homes, and causing absolutely no harm to anyone Considering that there is -at least- a correlation between substance abuse and domestic abuse [1,2]. I wouldn't be so sure to say "absolutely no harm" in this case. [1] https://www.gov1.com/public-health/articles/the-link-between-domestic-violence-and-substance-abuse-2vHeS0cs20IdzGZz/ https://www.gov1.com/public-health/articles/the-link-between... [2] https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/5/1035/5486457 https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/5/1035/5486457
- 127361 3y ago
  I meant individuals living on their own in that case. By all means increase the penalties for the abuse if it's proven to be fueled by drugs.
  - bluish29 3y ago
    That's fair, that's an edge case of the law but probably is not the general trend.

dilippkumar 3y ago

As an immigrant, this stood out to me: > ... I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who ... > ... This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense. In the first of the above, it specifically states that it applies to citizens and lawful permanent residents. In the second, it says it does not apply to people who didn't have valid immigration status. So, what happens to someone who had a valid immigration status, but was not a lawful permanent resident? For example, someone on a student or a tourist visa? Can anyone with legal expertise shed some light on how such things are usually resolved? My naive expectation would be that it still would only apply to citizens and lawful permanent residents. But then, why specifically call out that it doesn't apply to this specific group out of many other groups that aren't covered under "citizens or lawful permanent residents"?

leviathant 3y ago
>So, what happens to someone who had a valid immigration status, but was not a lawful permanent resident? For example, someone on a student or a tourist visa? I brought my wife over on the 90 day fiancee visa well before there was a TV show about it, and mostly because it was the only way we could hang out. Thankfully we lucked out, and celebrated our 20th anniversary earlier this year. But to the point: When you're dealing with DHS and immigration, it's made absolutely clear that if you screw anything up, you're kicked out of the country and it's going to be a ballache to get back in. It's not surprising that they were not included in the blanket pardon, and I think that's actually pretty reasonable, even though I also think that incarceration over marijuana possession is absurd and has been pretty devastating to the lives of millions of people and the communities they live in. The amount of work you have to do to qualify for a visa, and to move between the different statuses (there are fun periods where your status is just... pending. When we went through this, there was nothing you have to show for this except for a generic looking letter from DHS. All your fancy documentation is sitting in a US Gov't inbox somewhere while they make sure you're not a terrorist) and, frankly, if you manage to get arrested for smoking weed while you're on a visa, you're kind of an idiot. We didn't even travel outside the country until my wife got her full-fledged citizenship. And when she applied for that, they gave her a hard time over the speeding tickets she'd gotten while here. Whether you agree with the concept or not, visitors to the country are told pretty clearly that the rules apply extra hard to them, and the consequences of not following very basic rules are going to be extra inconvenient. You get caught breaking the law, you risk losing your visa status and losing the ability to ever visit the country again.

didgeoridoo 3y ago

For reference, as of January 2022 there were ZERO people in federal custody solely for simple possession of marijuana[0]. As a gesture, this seems fine. But the continued presence of cannabis on Schedule I makes an absolute mockery out of our entire code of laws. [0]: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impact-simple-possession-marijuana https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...

sakopov 3y ago
> Just over 300 people — or 0.5% of the total prison population — are behind bars for any sort of drug possession. [1] If anything it'll help some folks to have a their records cleaned up. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-wont-free-many-currently-in-federal-prison-2022-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won...
- crtified 3y ago
  I agree with your point. But the quoted statistic is confusing. Under what specifics would 300 people = 0.5% of the total prison population? As I understand it, the total prison population of the USA is over 1 million, and the subset designated 'federal prisoners' is, by itself, over 200,000.
  - hedora 3y ago
    That 0.5% figure is wrong. It’s closer to 20%. (350,000 people) Here is a write up of many prisoner stats from 2023. See slideshow 3: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html Note that terminology in this space is very important and subtle. 7 million people are arrested each year, and > 600K are sent to prison, but the total number of people in prison (and number that are incarcerated one way or another) is much lower than those numbers suggest. The total incarcerated population is about 1.75 million.
    - d0mine 3y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

Hot take- I don't use cannabis and I like that cannabis use disqualifies a lot of my competitors in the job market.

drevil-v2 3y ago

At university two of my friends went down a dark road with Marijuana use. One destroyed his very bright future - went from a top student to a dropout. The other one had severe mental psychosis episodes, the last one being where he physically threatened other students with a knife and was arrested and subsequently medically repatriated back to his home country - his parents were financially ruined by the cost of getting him home. I am not sure that this is as black and white as some people make it out to be. Complete freedom to do whatever one pleases is not Utopia. There is a limit if one wants a functioning society that is on the whole safe and high trust.

cozzyd 3y ago
Yes, while with alcohol, nobody has ruined their future or physically threatened others.
joquarky 3y ago
Utopia is not achievable, and the path to hell is laid with good intentions. > There is a limit if one wants a functioning society that is on the whole safe and high trust. We all have different thresholds on where that limit lies. In the film Demolition Man, Dr. Raymond Cocteau's vision of a safe San Angeles did not allow sports, swearing, eating meat, or consuming sugar or caffeine because they are "bad" for you.

akomtu 3y ago

This proclamation has essentially freed slaves held by the prison complex, and I bet it will try to claw back an equal amount on inmates by other means in the coming years. Maybe DUI and traffic laws will become harsher.

pyuser583 3y ago

I live in an area where private consumption is de facto legal. A neighbor of mine would smoke weed constantly. A young woman would come to his apartment every month or so. He would open the door, invite her in, and she would refuse. They would talk at the door for about five minutes while marijuana smoke drifted into the hall. Then she’d leave. One day I asked she was his daughter, she said laughed and said, “No, I’m his parole officer!” So it’s pretty legal for indoors purposes. But - it’s not de facto legal in public. This is a big issue in public parks. Nobody wants their kids to share a park with potheads. Same applies for alcohol and tobacco. I’m fine with legalizing pot under the same conditions as alcohol - in your residence, buying from authorized dealers, high taxes, review boards, etc. But just look at the high number of alcohol related crimes. Not just drunk driving, but public intoxication too. Don’t expect legality pot to make the illegal uses go away. People will stop buy from illegal dealers, which will continue to be prosecuted (they don’t pay taxes). It won’t do much good or harm.

cheeze 3y ago
> Nobody wants their kids to share a park with potheads I see this as no different than alcohol or tobacco (which you also called out) Growing up and not having a place to smoke, we'd always go to a park. But we'd go deep into the woods, etc. last thing we wanted to do was inconvenience someone else, leading to us getting caught. Same is true of when we drank booze. No need to do it in front of a family.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  I’m talking about parks I can’t take my family to because of how much drinking and pot smoking is going on - not kids smoking the middle of the forest. The police give warnings, then only after a thousand warning give tickets. But at the end of the day, these parks are not usable because of “partying.” When I had kids I took pride in living in a lower income neighborhood. I didn’t want to be part of “white flight.” But park problem went from being a nuisance to a big problem when COVID hit. Parks were one of the only places kids could go. Now the kids are older I’m looking forward to leaving the soulless suburbs where all houses look the same. But public drinking and drug use made the public spaces in lower income neighborhoods unusable. Legalizing pot won’t help or hurt at all. But some people with convictions for possession deserve to have a light and temporary black mark on their record.

shipscode 3y ago

Do guns next.

thelastgallon 3y ago
Isn't possession of guns already legal?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Much like The adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer had no long term downsides and "fixed" the Ozone hole [1], this action is an unequivocal good and there are no long term downsides from my perspective. [1]https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone...

fyrn_ 3y ago

This pardon applies only to federal possession and use sentences, still a nice gesture, but it's a small percentage of convictions as federal prosecution of these charges is rare. More important for it's symbolic effects then for the actual direct results

al_borland 3y ago
I don’t get how there can be a blanket pardon on the books for federal crimes, while still being illegal at a federal level. The pardon should have come along with legalization, and putting it on the same level as alcohol. The current situation feels ridiculous.
- fyrn_ 3y ago
  This pardon applies to convictions that existed at the time of the pardon, it's not automatically applied to future convictions. This power comes from the presidential right to pardon, it's not the ability to disable a law while they are in office. In theory it could be used for that, however the president would have to pardon each time.

torstenvl 3y ago

I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon. It's very frustrating. Violations under Article 112a, UCMJ, solely for use of marijuana, should also be included.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon. Nothing in the text of the pardon does that is "singling out" veterans. It doesn't pardon UCMJ violations, but it absolutely includes military veterans with federal civilian convictions (unless they were in unsatisfactory immigration status at the time of the offense.) Not including military offenses is a different thing than singling out veterans.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  Fine. I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans with military convictions not to receive this pardon. It's significant disparate treatment in a way that precludes a significant benefit from going to a group of people of whom 100% have served this country. EDIT: And no, Parker v. Levy is not a valid justification for this, as the conduct was equally criminalized in both the military and the civilian world. Furthermore, Parker v. Levy and related cases are only relevant on what is lawful to make different in the military justice system, not what is good policy. Nobody is saying the President cannot exercise the pardon power in a way that discriminates against military members; the pardon power is plenary. I am saying he shouldn't.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans with military convictions not to receive this pardon. There's a fairly consistent throughline in the theory of the law (that gets to the reason there even is a UCMJ in the first place) that military discipline is categorically distinct from civilian criminal law, and under that theory possession of marijuana contrary to military regulations is meaningfully distinct from simple possession in the civilian context. Its also, to be fair, pretty clear that, clear and crisp as the theory may be, in practice that's more of a statistical difference in significance than a categorical one. But even a statistical difference can, arguably, justify the normal case-by-case approach to clemency rather than a blanket approach.

gregsher88 3y ago

"As I have said before, convictions for simple possession of marijuana have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities." This has always seemed like cruel and unusual punishment to me. Effectively a life sentence for misdemeanor crimes. This is a good first step, but it does not go far enough.

rabbits_2002 3y ago

this is all just for show until they legalize it. Biden has been on record saying he wont, and there are very, very few federal convictions. I don’t know why the government is so hell-bent on arresting teenagers and giving free money to cartels.