[HN Gopher] Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession...
___________________________________________________________________
Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession of Marijuana
Author : 9wzYQbTYsAIc
Score : 279 points
Date : 2022-10-06 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.whitehouse.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.whitehouse.gov)
| Ancapistani wrote:
| As someone who is extremely dissatisfied with Biden in general -
| I 100% applaud this action. It's a huge step in the right
| direction and should have been done years ago.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| ortusdux wrote:
| > More than 6,500 individuals with prior convictions for simple
| marijuana possession were impacted by the pardons, a White House
| official said, and thousands more through pardons under D.C. law.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/biden-to-pardon-all-prior-fe...
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I was under the impression that a blanket proclamation like this
| wasn't enough; he still had to sign off on every pardon
| individually.
|
| Not sure why I thought that though.
| evanb wrote:
| Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers via a similar blanket
| proclamation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483.
| But they're relatively rare.
| curiousllama wrote:
| It was a thing in VA for a while. I the governor had to sign
| 200k individual orders to restore voting rights to felons. Just
| a quirk of VA law, though
|
| > McAuliffe, a man known for his irascibility, promised to find
| a way to restore voting rights anyway, using an autopen to sign
| individual orders for all 200,000 felons within two weeks.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virgini...
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Thank you; this is what I was thinking of.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Would this mean that cannabis is effectively legal in DC?
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| Not at this time.
|
| See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113698 for
| discussion about next steps delineated by the government.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| No, this only applies to possession until and including today.
| If you are caught in possession of marijuana tomorrow, you can
| go to jail for this exact same offense.
| r00fus wrote:
| Yes, for going forward we need legislation - which is the
| other part of the proclamation - that HHS Beccera will be
| driving policy changes that will likely require congress.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| Note this applies only to citizens and lawful permanent
| residents. I'm not sure if there's an underlying constitutional
| limitation or if it's arbitrary, but (IANAL) it seems arbitrary
| as the cited section has no such limitation.
|
| I welcome _any_ progress towards decriminalization and
| legalization, but I think it's important always to be aware when
| and how the progress is limited.
| nextstep wrote:
| I saw that too. What's the justification for such a carve out?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Avoiding allegations of 'rolling out the welcome mat for
| illegals' in GOP campaign commercials.
| [deleted]
| kragen wrote:
| Interestingly, he specifically excludes illegal immigrants who
| are not US citizens from the pardon, as well as (implicitly)
| people who _used_ to be lawful permanent residents but no longer
| are (perhaps because their visa got revoked after being arrested
| for possessing marijuana), as well as _former_ US citizens (if
| there are any who have been charged with this "crime") and
| people who were never residents in the US at all (perhaps they
| got arrested when they changed flights at a US airport). So this
| is a step in the right direction, but not nearly far enough. I
| wonder why he went to the trouble of making all those exclusions.
| notch656a wrote:
| It's obvious. They want to make sure those people are
| ineligible (or a least seriously impeded) for a visa, green
| card, or citizenship. Very few offenses can absolutely torpedo
| immigration to the US as much as drug possession/offenses.
|
| The US is a relatively 'free' country in many areas but they
| have a shockingly dystopian immigration and DHS, with border
| security that many travelers characterize as one of the most
| brutal in the world. Even as a US citizen with clean record I
| am subject to invasive (cavity) searches, cuffing/throwing in a
| cell, questioning, threats that I'll not be allowed in the
| country etc when I deal with CBP/DHS. If you have a marijuana
| offense as an immigrant you are utterly fucked, and those in
| power would like to keep it that way.
| bink wrote:
| IANAL but AFAIK a US Citizen cannot be denied entry to the US
| under any circumstances. They can detain you, search you,
| seize property, and charge you with any relevant crimes...
| but they can't simply deny entry.
| kragen wrote:
| Lacking your perspective, that thought hadn't even occurred
| to me.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| >all current United States citizens and lawful permanent
| residents who committed the offense of simple possession of
| marijuana
|
| >This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens
| not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their
| offense.
|
| What about non-citizens lawfully present but not permanent
| residents, such as tourists and short-term visa holders?
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| It's about time.
|
| Interesting articles if you search for
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cannabis+poses+quandary
| titfortat wrote:
| It's actually much too little far too late, we should not be
| praising any effort that falls short of full federal
| legalization.
| tssva wrote:
| The President doesn't have the power to legalize marijuana by
| proclamation. He has ordered the DEA, FDA and HHS to review
| the classification of marijuana under the notice and comment
| rulemaking process defined in the Controlled Substances Act.
| That is the limit of what he can do under the CSA.
| infamouscow wrote:
| These agencies can say cannabis has medical benefits and
| reschedule it just as easily as they decided to make it
| schedule I.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Weed is scheduled by Congress, the agencies can only add
| substances to the schedules temporarily for "public
| health reasons" and there's some weed derived stuff or
| analogues that have been added that way but marihuana in
| and of itself is illegal because congress passed a law
| saying it's illegal: the CSA, 21 U.S. Code SS 812 (c)
|
| The CSA allows for schedules to be updated and
| republished annually but agencies can only recommend, the
| authority to remove something that's scheduled by
| Congress is only held by Congress.
| infamouscow wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sc
| hed...
| vlan0 wrote:
| I agree, it's not what we'd like to see. But It does not have
| to be binary. We must celebrate all wins, no matter how
| small.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| I disagree, I believe that we should reward, positively, the
| behaviors that we would like to see from the government, such
| as simple proclamations such as this.
|
| edit: tit for tat, as your username promotes
| aschearer wrote:
| Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a time
| when one political party's leading candidates deny we hold
| fair elections this is huge. Would said political party do
| even this much? Unlikely.
| etchalon wrote:
| Good.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| > My intent by this proclamation is to pardon only the offense of
| simple possession of marijuana in violation of Federal law or in
| violation of D.C. Code 48-904.01(d)(1), and not any other
| offenses related to marijuana or other controlled substances.
| anonym29 wrote:
| This is a great step in the right direction. Hopefully this is
| laying the groundwork for federal decriminalization.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Hopefully not. The laws on marijuana are too strict (there
| are some legit medical uses), but it is a dangerous drug, and
| getting more dangerous as dealers breed plants with more and
| more THC. https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-
| Marijuana-Violence...
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| > _[Biden] will also ask the secretary of the Department of
| Health and Human Services and the attorney general to review
| how the drug is scheduled under current federal law._
|
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-
| decri...
| [deleted]
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| > Mr Biden, a Democrat, said he will call upon all state
| governors to issue their own marijuana pardons.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964
| throwaway787544 wrote:
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| IANL: How many would this be? Considering 21 U.S.C. 844 applies
| to federal jurisdiction, this would be those simple possession
| _convictions_ at military bases, immigration /airports
| checkpoints, federal facilities and employees, and ? That does
| not sound like many people...
|
| More interestingly, I wonder how this will apply to federal
| contracting. IIRC, Elon smoked a join with Joe Rogan and had to
| submit to a year of drug tests per his contract with the federal
| government, visavia NASA, etc.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| According to Business Insider[1], just 149 people.
|
| [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-
| won....
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| It doesn't look like this deschedules marijuana, nor does it
| remove it as a potential dealbreaker with a security clearance
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| That's a really good point. I wonder how it will impact those
| who were turned down for security clearances, maybe convicted
| of marijuana use in relation to government contracting, etc.
| Suddenly 6,500 people have opportunities.
|
| Wow. Let's say a person within that pool ONLY had a felony
| for marijuana possession. This pardon restores their voting
| rights.
| foobarian wrote:
| It does look like descheduling will be looked into, which
| would be fantastic
| willcipriano wrote:
| Is this on going? If someone gets arrested tomorrow can they
| apply for a pardon and be set free?
| metacritic12 wrote:
| No. It clearly states there this is only for offenses today or
| before.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Missed that bit.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| > on or before the date of this proclamation, regardless of
| whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for this
| offense on or before the date of this proclamation
| bdcravens wrote:
| Most arrests are for state charges, not federal. Presidential
| pardons only cover federal charges.
| googlryas wrote:
| Can someone tell me why Obama didn't do this 10 years ago? Or
| even 6.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Ironically: Donald Trump.
|
| Obama's tenure as President was marked by a distinct attempt to
| meet the GOP as peers. It seems as though he was, mostly, a
| pretty strong believer (philosophically) in co-governance by
| all representatives of the people of the US in the federal
| government. "Reach across the aisle" was a frequently-used
| phrase at that time. And if he unilaterally pardoned people
| legally convicted of marijuana offenses without Congress first
| changing the law, what kind of message would that send about
| the nature of executive power in the United States of America?
|
| His political peers responded by refusing to consider a Supreme
| Court nomination; supporting and nominating Donald Trump, whom
| voters then elected; and seating three Supreme Court justices,
| who then overturned precedent that had protected the
| reproductive rights of a generation and a half of Americans.
| Their party platform in 2020 was "That the Republican Party has
| and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's
| America-first agenda" with no other changes from the 2016
| platform. No mention of policy; no mention of Congress.
|
| The modern Democratic party is under no illusions that reaching
| across the aisle will benefit them and is now in the tit-for-
| tat phase of the two-party prisoner's dilemma. If this move
| wins Biden's party votes going into the midterms, then forget
| Congress. If Congress wants a say in how the country is
| governed, they can get their act together and do the few
| structural changes that would un-deadlock the Senate and allow
| laws to be passed.
|
| I don't know if this is a strategy that would have worked
| during Obama's administration. I don't think Obama's strategies
| work in this era, though.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It could have worked. The problem always was that Obama was
| so enthralled with the concept of bipartisanship that he
| didn't listen to his opponents when they told the press *in
| 2009* that their only goal for the next four years was to
| destroy his presidency.
|
| So he always bent over for the Republicans, often sabotaging
| things like Obamacare by pre-negotiating with his own
| administration to remove things he thought the Republicans
| would dislike.
|
| Of course, the Republicans didn't care what he did. They were
| going to oppose everything they could get away with opposing.
| (Their voters did still expect some governance in those days,
| instead of the full-time vengeance mode they now expect.)
| guelo wrote:
| He didnt believe in it. Obama's DOJ continued raiding and
| shutting down California medical marijuana dispensaries until
| the last year of his term.
|
| In many ways Biden is more progressive than Obama.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| > In many ways Biden is more progressive than Obama
|
| As is society as a whole.
| dangerlibrary wrote:
| One answer to your question is probably "because he spent his
| limited political capital trying to ensure everyone in America
| had access to healthcare."
|
| Another would be that he actually laid the groundwork for this
| kind of action. Obama made pursuing marijuana convictions the
| lowest possible priority for federal prosecutors and law
| enforcement officials [0], effectively saying "if states want
| to make weed legal, the federal government isn't going to do
| anything about it." After that, a number of states held
| referenda on legalizing weed, and most passed with broad
| support. This is the next logical step at the federal level -
| pardoning anyone who was convicted during that period and
| taking steps towards changing marijuana from a schedule 1 drug
| (where it has never belonged) to something more reasonable. [1]
| No president can fully legalize weed at the federal level, but
| they can reschedule it based on the actual cost/benefits to
| individuals and society.
|
| Another more cynical answer is that Obama is black, and didn't
| want the legacy of the first black president to also be "the
| one who pardoned all the drug offenders"
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_policy_of_the_Barack_...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
| [deleted]
| googlryas wrote:
| But you don't need political capital to make a unilateral
| executive decision? He could have done this after he was
| already a lame duck. It's not like a president can undo a
| pardon.
| wk_end wrote:
| He'd be expending the political capital of his party. If he
| felt like this pardon would've made it harder for Democrats
| to get elected in 2016, that might be a reason why he
| didn't do it.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Won't someone think of the poor politicians?
| wk_end wrote:
| The question was "why didn't he do it?", not "should he
| have done it?".
| mywittyname wrote:
| I want the politicians on my side thinking about how to
| get their party members elected.
| vkou wrote:
| > But you don't need political capital to make a unilateral
| executive decision?
|
| You need political capital if you make that decision and
| don't want to be eviscerated in the next election.
| dangerlibrary wrote:
| Good politicians do things they know will be popular. This
| isn't always a bad thing. Presidential actions can
| influence a lot of down-ballot races. For good or ill, both
| Obama and Biden are politicians, and only took the steps
| they felt would be popular with their constituents at the
| time.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| It was simply not a priority then. An election is coming up,
| and winning it is the priority right now. That is why we
| suddenly have movement on Marijuana, and student loans. The
| timing is ridiculously suspect.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| If you follow the news trail on this topic at all, you would
| be aware that the Democratic Party has been pretty loud about
| marihuana reform for at least a year now.
| aschearer wrote:
| It's not suspect, it's politics. Giving your constituents
| what they are asking for is the name of the game. Timing it
| to maximize your chances for re-election is good politics.
| Hard to imagine it could be any other way in our current
| system.
| xienze wrote:
| He wasn't as unpopular as Biden going into a midterm election.
| r00fus wrote:
| That's kind of amazing, all things considering both for Biden
| and Obama.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Minimal affect. Most marijuana possession charges are state,
| not federal, and presidential pardons don't affect state
| charges.
| Supermancho wrote:
| Same as today, so that's not a compelling reason. As
| mentioned by someone else, Obama did make some overtures that
| allowed the party to feel out the base's reactions.
| Legalization was always going to be a process. Right now, I
| believe this is typical (D) politicking. I think it's likely
| that this is something like...Biden needs a positive press to
| boost for both his approval rating and visibility within his
| base, for the next election cycle, with a minor symbolic
| gesture. Obama never needed to do that.
| rednerrus wrote:
| If the WH's statement that this affects 6,500 people, that
| seems like an actual affective.
| adolph wrote:
| 4% given a Fed prison pop of "151,283 at yearend 2020."
|
| https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-
| st...
| pavon wrote:
| None of the pardoned individuals are serving prison time
| for their offenses. The main value of the pardon is that
| having a felony conviction makes it harder to get jobs
| and bars you from voting in some states. Around 8% of the
| US population has had a felony conviction.
| joveian wrote:
| It can prevent people from running or working for legal
| marijuana businesses in states where it is legal, meaning
| a history of uneven enforcment continues to affect the
| legal marijuana industry.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amandachicagolewis/a
| mer...
|
| I think Oregon either has made changes to address this or
| is close to doing so. This helps at the federal level.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Bc he was operating under immense pressure to not be radical or
| risk exacerbating the racist politics aligning against him
| AlexandrB wrote:
| This feels revisionist. Obama won by a healthy margin in 2012
| and those that subscribed to the racist politics probably
| would not have voted for him even if he locked up every
| African American in the US. He had every opportunity to push
| for bold change and instead disappointed his base by being
| timid.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have
| been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have
| almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's
| great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not
| the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but
| the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to
| justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence
| of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of
| justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal
| you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct
| action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the
| timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth
| of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until
| a 'more convenient season.'" - Martin Luther King Jr.
|
| Losing Democrats was the concern, not Republicans; they
| were already lost. There are plenty of "tough on crime"
| Dems out there for Obama to navigate.
|
| For the same reasons, Michelle Obama had to be careful with
| hairstyles and how she spoke, lest she be perceived as an
| "angry Black lady".
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I don't agree with this -- the "losing Democrats" bit --
| but I don't think it should be downvoted.
|
| Michelle Obama was treated horribly. Trump's First Lady
| was a Russian prostitute who literally hated Christmas,
| and she was given the benefit of the doubt until the very
| last moment.
| cannaceo wrote:
| Where are the pardons for non-violent cannabis offenders that
| were not simple possession?
| pcbro141 wrote:
| Note: The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana
| possession are not charged Federally. This only applies to the
| Federal charges specified, Biden can't do anything about the
| State level charges most people are charged with.
|
| Just noting for non-American readers.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This applies to somewhere in the neighborhood of 149 people[1].
|
| [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-
| won....
| runjake wrote:
| The way I'm reading it, it also applies to people who are not
| incarcerated but still have felonies on their records.
|
| If so, that's a whole lot more than 149 people.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| 6 500, according to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113859
|
| In 2017, there were 650 000 marijuana arrests across the
| states, up from the year before.
|
| https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state
| viscanti wrote:
| That's just in the DC metro area. Nationally it could be
| higher.
| ekianjo wrote:
| "Highly symbolic" or "game changer" to be reported by
| newspapers
| pessimizer wrote:
| Moving from victory to victory, burnishing his progressive
| record. But will midterm voters recognize his overwhelming
| success?
| nimbius wrote:
| feels like the current POTUS is either signaling his parties
| future legislative priority at best, pandering for november
| votes, or performing the legislative equivalent of 'dnf clean
| all' as these low level offenders are becoming increasingly
| burdensome and expensive to house and feed during a recession.
| dwater wrote:
| One man's pandering for votes is another man's fulfilling of
| electoral mandate and promises.
| mywittyname wrote:
| It's all three. Biden is a consummate politician.
|
| From talking with friends, Biden isn't terribly popular with
| the segment of Democratic voters for which marijuana and
| student loans are top priority. He managed to make progress
| on the student loans recently, but efforts on drug reform
| have stalled.
| LtWorf wrote:
| Could it be because he used to be involved with war on
| drugs?
| nkozyra wrote:
| > Could it be because he used to be involved with war on
| drugs?
|
| That's true of pretty much every politician who's been in
| office for more than, say, fifteen years.
|
| Save a few libertarians here and there.
| IanDrake wrote:
| neither_color wrote:
| Even if it's pandering for midterms it's refreshing to get
| some bones thrown at us.
| lukas099 wrote:
| A lot (most?) of what all politicians ever do is pandering
| for votes.
| pdpi wrote:
| Even if he only has power to issue pardons at the federal
| level, this sort of measure has plenty of value as a symbolic
| gesture. It kind of signals a mentality shift.
| 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote:
| "But it's symbolic" is literally the cope of our generation.
|
| It means practically nothing and we must demand more than
| symbolism.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Legalization isn't like fixing climate change or curing
| cancer. It is literally just a question of getting enough
| voters and politicians to agree that the current laws are
| stupid. A 79-year-old President signing this pardon is
| actually a huge step in formulating that consensus.
| danso wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-
| sta...
| pessimizer wrote:
| 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.
| Kiro wrote:
| What are the headaches and how do they solve it? Just
| interested what it means in practice with different state
| and federal laws.
| rekttrader wrote:
| Also, cases can be brought on a state based jurisdictional
| level and be dropped cause of this federal act.
| valleyer wrote:
| On what basis? In the US, the tenth amendment allows states
| to enforce their own drug laws regardless of what the
| federal government says.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Something something Wickard v. Filburn
| IncRnd wrote:
| That's not true. First, this is not a federal act. An act
| is an individual law. A federal act is a federal law. This,
| however, comes through the use of the President's
| constitutional pardon power, which is only allowed for
| offenses against the United States. Due to the creation of
| The District of Columbia, offenses against that code are
| also included in the President's pardon power.
|
| This absolutely does not apply to any state.
| n65463f23_4 wrote:
| the mentality shifted to "elections are coming up"
| pdpi wrote:
| Sure. But it wasn't that long ago that the way you acted on
| elections coming up would be to adopt a "tough on drugs"
| posture.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Democrats are the defund the police party nowadays
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Oh no please politicians stop doing things your
| constituents want you to do in hopes of success in future
| re-election campaigns!
|
| Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?
| ekianjo wrote:
| You mean creating more debt?
| NackerHughes wrote:
| The way it's supposed to work is that politicians do
| things their constituents want all the time, rather than
| token gestures just as the time approaches when they risk
| being kicked out if they're unpopular.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| I don't know of a political system which doesn't work
| contrary to intention. You just hope they work and try to
| make them better. Cursing the times they do function
| seems weird.
|
| Every U.S. president going back to Lincoln and before has
| triangulated their actions based upon the political
| circumstances of their moment. The Emancipation
| Proclamation itself was pocketed until it could be
| announced after a clear Union victory. I think the
| criticism is fine but it doesn't make Biden unique at all
| and keeping that context is important.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Sure, that would be great. It would also be great if my
| socks would conveniently pair themselves off and get into
| my dresser when I was done with laundry. In reality,
| systems operate according to rules. In the case of
| people, they will always * act in their actual or
| perceived self-interest.
|
| The whole point of relatively frequent elections is that
| we know politicians do this. We get a little honeymoon
| period when they are first elected, a little honeymoon
| period before the next election activity, and a period in
| the middle where they do whatever they can do satisfy
| whatever internal reward function they have. I am all
| about encouraging them to do the things I like for as
| long as possible. This is a thing I like.
|
| *mostly
| adamrezich wrote:
| how can one genuinely hold this position? just because
| it's the status quo, it's all we should ask of our public
| servants who demand that we vote for them?
|
| posts like this make me think that democracy may have
| been a mistake after all.
| bombcar wrote:
| The reality is the politicians always _promise_ to do
| what people want but never quite _actually_ do it, so
| that they can keep getting those people to vote for them.
|
| Works painfully well all around.
| [deleted]
| adzm wrote:
| Giving the people what they want; I can get on board with
| that.
| coolspot wrote:
| They are not wrong. Biden could have done that two years
| ago, but chose to do it only 1 month before midterms.
| mjfl wrote:
| Yup. Same with depleting the strategic petroleum reserve
| and student loan "forgiveness".
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Which is bizarre because these midterms are projected to be
| incredibly non-competitive. There are very few genuine
| toss-ups to speak of.
|
| _Even if_ all toss-ups go red or blue, neither party can
| gain a filibuster-proof majority. Best case for Democrats,
| Manchin and Sinema still reign as agenda-makers.
| cryptonector wrote:
| It's a pretty empty gesture.
| coryfklein wrote:
| It does set the stage for states to issue similar pardons.
| Although red states are unlikely to do so, I believe it will
| have second-order effects that do pressure red states.
|
| A large part of The War On Drugs was the top-down messaging
| villainizing possession and use of cannabis, and that same
| power is now being used in the opposite direction to some
| extent. Combine that with an aging baby boomer generation, and
| you have youth growing up in red states today who are much less
| likely to believe that folks should be put in jail for
| possession.
|
| Next the purple states will adopt similar language and policy,
| then the idea of criminalization well become an
| outside/extremist/fringe policy and - my prediction - finally
| within a decade or two even many red states will be
| decriminalizing cannabis as well.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| True, but this will help the tens of thousands of people who
| have been affected by this that live in Washington, D.C., and
| provides some precedent for Governors to do the same across the
| country.
|
| https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488
| dexwiz wrote:
| Also if they are in prison due to other charges, like those
| relating to firearms, they may remain in there. Most people are
| not charged for possession alone.
| notch656a wrote:
| It's fucked up though that merely possessing weed+firearm is
| makes you "prohibited possessor" with 10 years in jail when a
| NAND of the two is legal. Such a person may be considered a
| violator of weapons and drug laws, even though all they did
| was own a legal firearm and simple possession of weed.
| brian_herman wrote:
| I didn't know this, and I am American thanks for the
| clarification.
| tssva wrote:
| The President also has pardon powers for those convicted of
| violating District of Columbia laws and this order also applies
| to those convicted under DC simple possession laws.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| DC laws are, constitutionally speaking, based on lawmaking
| authority delegated by Congress under their plenary power
| over territories and subject to any legislative modifications
| that Congress chooses to make directly from time to time, so
| it's effectively federal law.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| National parks across the country, too.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| That's an example of when federal laws apply, yes. (It's
| not a separate legal system subject to presidential
| authority.)
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I have a friend in SV who got arrested for possession in one
| the national parks around there. Apparently it's a federal
| charge and hence he is still struggling to get citizenship.
| eloff wrote:
| Still, it will set an example for the blue states to follow.
| That's something at least. Red states would probably be less
| likely to do this just based on where the example is coming
| from. It's progress of a sort in undoing a grave injustice.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Most of the blue states are legal or decriminalized at this
| point.
|
| What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for
| clemency/pardons when legalization happens.
|
| I don't care about marijuana, it's never been very
| interesting to me, but it's absurd the amount of human
| capital that's gone into stopping it and sigmatizing its use
| in this country.
| Maursault wrote:
| > The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession
| are not charged Federally.
|
| I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession
| occurred at national parks and monuments. But still even if
| violations were widespread, arrests and convictions probably
| weren't. You would need a really bored D.A., and I would assume
| they're usually just as busy as most other attorneys.
| naasking wrote:
| > I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple
| possession occurred at national parks and monuments
|
| Borders?
| bdcravens wrote:
| You'd be surprised at how many Americans don't understand how
| Presidential pardons work either.
| xani_ wrote:
| Why ? Do they teach that in school ? If not why it would be
| surprising to not know how it works ?
| jjk166 wrote:
| It is surprising that it is not typically taught in
| schools. One would think an understanding of how our
| government works and the limits of its powers would be
| critical for a functional democracy, but 57% of Americans
| have never even read the constitution nonetheless had any
| formal education about the context and consequences of its
| clauses. Of course there will always be more things we want
| kids to learn than there is time to teach them, but I
| seriously question what was prioritized over civics.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's understandable that studying the constitution could
| be useful, but arguably so would studying the NEC.
|
| In both cases it shouldn't be a requirement; we don't
| demand studying the NEC before using electricity.
|
| And even those with a _very_ good understanding of the
| constitution and civics probably don 't have a very good
| handling on the _actualities_ of how everything works,
| unless perhaps they 're a criminal lawyer.
| [deleted]
| tjohns wrote:
| On the other hand, if you're going to actually do DIY
| work on your house's wiring, it would be prudent to at
| least have some familiarity with the NEC.
|
| Since we're in a democracy, every election involves
| everyday citizens adjusting the wiring of our government.
| Doubly so in states that allow voter-initiated statutes
| and constitutional amendments via referendum.
| kragen wrote:
| The official original US Constitution is written out on
| one largish page. The original text, plus footnotes, is
| 10 pages in https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110h
| doc50/pdf/CDOC-.... On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Con
| stitution_of_the_United_St... it's, by my count, 4370
| words. That's 121/2 minutes of reading.
|
| The amendments are another 15 pages, which is mostly
| taken up by footnotes about which states ratified them
| when. On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bil
| l_of_Rights and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional
| _amendments_to_the_... we have 809 and 2698 words
| respectively. That's another 10 minutes of reading.
|
| Also, most of that text is unchanged since 01789, and it
| hasn't changed at all since 01992, when one sentence was
| added. If you'd spent those 221/2 minutes in 01992 you'd
| still be up to date. And it is in the public domain, so
| it is easy to obtain.
|
| NFPA's National Electrical Code (I assume that's the one
| you mean) is over 1000 pages, and a new version comes out
| each year.
| wmf wrote:
| Pardons are so rare that it's not a good use of brain space
| for most people. They have been in the news more in recent
| years due to you know who.
| thakoppno wrote:
| > Despite a burst of pardons and commutations in his last
| hours in office, Donald Trump used his executive clemency
| power less frequently than nearly every other president
| since the turn of the 20th century, according to a Pew
| Research Center analysis of U.S. Justice Department data.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-
| used-...
| kornork wrote:
| I mean... fine, but IMO it's not the number of pardons
| issued that made this top of mind, but rather the
| constant controversy around people given pardons, gossip
| about people who requested pardons, and speculation about
| the legality of a potential self-pardon.
| kadoban wrote:
| Fewer in number, but much higher in corrupt intent, even
| compared with the usual bunch of ~sketchy pardons for
| donors and friends.
| thakoppno wrote:
| Would you mind elaborating on which ones you found
| sketchy, preferably spanning administrations?
|
| Above all I do not want to argue politics. I am not a
| supporter of the previous President. Nor am I a supporter
| of the current. In the past I have voted for Democrats
| and Republicans but I'm pretty sure it's protest 3rd
| party votes for me for the foreseeable future.
| jackmott wrote:
| citilife wrote:
| A lot of people don't know basic civics.
|
| IMO our education system should be focused primarily
| understanding and respecting history, law and civics.
|
| I think the vast majority of Americans have no idea about any
| of the basics of the American system, which is frankly...
| scary.
| eftychis wrote:
| Can't say everyone or even most world wide are doing a
| great job necessarily. So I wouldn't take it too hard on
| oneself. But there must be improvement on the topic. The
| problem in the U.S. I would say is that lack of knowledge
| of civics and law can get you in more trouble than other
| countries -- there is less of the "honest mistake"
| mentality and approach and more of "we have a hammer and we
| hammer nails or anything that looks like it." Again on
| average, and my impression. Also the legal system is way
| too overcomplicated and inconsistent for my formal mind.
| z3c0 wrote:
| I don't know... Obviously anecdata, but I'm from an area
| notorious for poor education standards, and civics and
| history were focused on very heavily there.
|
| I'll go out on a limb and suggest that civics and history
| aren't going to stick any better than any other subject
| until critical thinking has first been taught.
| [deleted]
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The problem is that because of underinvestment, or the
| wrong kinds of it, increasingly stringent standards without
| the advances in productivity or pedagogy means that every
| year gets closer to teaching to the test.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| From a foreign news outlet, ironically, for our American
| readers:
|
| > Mr Biden, a Democrat, said he will call upon all state
| governors to issue their own marijuana pardons.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964
| munk-a wrote:
| We had the same reporting up here in Canada. The president
| doesn't have a power to pardon state offenders but he urged
| state governors to mirror the change alongside the formal
| pardon for federal prisoners.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| The scope of this proclamation is really weird. It applies only
| to people who are currently US citizens or lawful permanent
| residents, minus any who were non-citizens not lawfully present
| in the US at the time of their offense.
|
| To give two examples of how weird this scope is: (1) If someone
| was convicted of the offense a few years ago when they were a US
| citizen but has since moved abroad and renounced their US
| citizenship, the renunciation would prevent this pardon from
| applying to them. But, (2) if someone committed the offense while
| overstaying tourist status and had that all waived and forgiven
| for immigration purposes through the options that are available
| when marrying a US citizen, the criminal record would remain
| unpardoned even if they are now a citizen.
|
| Do we know why Biden set these parameters, and if there's a
| chance it might get broadened to more reasonable boundaries?
| chasd00 wrote:
| how much marijuana do you have to be in possession of to be
| charged at the federal level? Federal charge means it's a felony
| correct? It has to be a lot to be considered a felony. That
| charge may be pardoned but i'm sure it qualifies for intent to
| distribute at the state level which is a much more serious charge
| than possession.
| tylersmith wrote:
| Federal charges come from infractions in federal jurisdictions.
| It's not related to the severity of the crime.
| tjohns wrote:
| Federal charge means it either (a) happened in land under
| federal jurisdiction (borders, national parks, military bases,
| etc.), or (b) involved interstate commerce/transportation.
|
| Something being a felony has no relevance to whether it's a
| federal charge. You can have misdemeanor federal charges, as
| well as felony state charges.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > (borders, national parks, military bases, etc.)
|
| Or anywhere in Washington D.C.
| meroes wrote:
| A tiny amount got a friend charged in a national park. Federal
| Park rangers. Doesn't matter if it's in a legal state.
| adamrezich wrote:
| despite sounding sarcastically exasperated, this is a legitimate
| question asked sincerely:
|
| when exactly, in the history of Modern Democracy, did the
| electorate start completely accepting token gestures and empty
| promises in place of actual, tangible progress enacted by their
| elected officials?
| tonymet wrote:
| this is more complicated than it sounds. "non violent offenders"
| is a myth because many offenders have their charges reduced
| during plea bargaining process.
|
| Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function there
| are dangerous side effects as experienced in California
| ausbah wrote:
| >this is more complicated than it sounds. "non violent
| offenders" is a myth because many offenders have their charges
| reduced during plea bargaining process.
|
| something like 80-90% of ALL cases at the federal level end in
| plea bargains, mostly for practical reasons because the legal
| system literally doesn't have the capacity to handle all the
| charges that would be brought forward. pretending it's unique
| to simple marijuana procession is fearmongering
|
| >Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function
| there are dangerous side effects as experienced in California
|
| the US has 25% of the world's prison population and 5% of the
| world's population, the ONLY worthwhile moral consideration is
| the mass release of US prisoners. stuff like "think of the side
| effects" just perpetuates the stays quo via perpetual
| "considerations"
| dundarious wrote:
| A positive development, but quite funny considering staffers were
| let go based on confessing to past use in a background check.
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/19/politics/biden-white-house-st...
| bombcar wrote:
| I can fully want someone to not see jail time and still not
| want them as an employee; I believe some companies even
| discriminate against smokers.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| If you can discriminate against smokers, which is a legal
| vice, can the employer discriminate on other legal vices,
| even taken in moderation, such as alcohol or caffeine, in a
| legal capacity?
|
| I'm the furthest thing from a lawyer and this is just a
| question to people who may know. I understand the smoking
| thing is an insurance issue.
| jamesgreenleaf wrote:
| > ...a full, complete, and unconditional pardon... regardless of
| whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for this
| offense...
|
| Millions of people can now truthfully say that they've been
| granted a presidential pardon.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| The number is in the 4 digit range, if I am not mistaken.
| margalabargala wrote:
| While the number of people who will be materially affected by
| this is in the four digits, this does technically apply to
| every one of the millions of people who have broken this
| federal law by possessing marijuana.
|
| One need not have been charged to receive a pardon.
| bitcurious wrote:
| You do however need to formally accept the pardon and
| therein admit guilt.
|
| https://courtmartiallaw.com/military-law/if-you-accept-a-
| par...
| aliqot wrote:
| I suppose it's quite limited; in what situations would you be
| charged w/ simple possession federally? I'm assuming if you
| came through an airport with a butt or residue, and were
| particularly rude maybe.
| bombcar wrote:
| I think the joke is that the pardon is "even if not
| charged" so if you ever had weed in your possession and
| _could_ have been charged, you 've now received a
| presidential pardon (even if the feds never even knew of
| you).
| aliqot wrote:
| This is starting to resemble more of a pardon in-spirit
| than anything.
|
| It is the minimum that can be done to make sure one side
| tells the other "be quiet, at least it is something,
| maybe next year" even though it is for a minuscule few to
| benefit from. Part of me cannot shake the urge to look at
| the calendar to see where we are in the election cycle,
| or what other news items this might be burying. I'm not
| the tinfoil type either, yet here we are.
|
| Are there any drug users out there willing to comment on
| how they feel about this and whether it benefits them
| directly or not?
| derefr wrote:
| What's the meaning of this part? What's an example of a person
| filtered out by this criterion?
|
| > This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens
| not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their
| offense.
|
| Is this about detaining (vs deporting) illegal immigrants?
| mitch3x3 wrote:
| A very large percentage of federal possession cases are drug
| smuggling at border crossings. This amendment is to keep those
| people locked up since their initial charge of "possession" was
| chosen over illegal border crossing or whatever else since it
| was probably a) easier to prosecute, and b) carried a harsher
| sentence
| lukas099 wrote:
| Maybe meant to exclude drug traffickers/cartel folks who could
| only be charged with simple possession for reasons.
| ntr-- wrote:
| It means
|
| > Don't fuckin' come here and ignore the rules
| rolph wrote:
| non citizen not lawfully present, to me means someone that
| snuck over, or talked thier way over lying about thier
| intentions.
|
| I get an impression from that verbiage there would be such a
| class as non citizen >lawfully present< at the time of offense,
| that would qualify.
| Euphorbium wrote:
| There should be reparations paid. Lifes have been ruined.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I don't think we're going to see that here.
|
| It is possible to issue a pardon like this without admitting to
| any government wrongdoing in crafting, passing, and enforcing
| the law in the first place. I don't think there's enough
| philosophical alignment in the US that criminalization of
| marijuana was actually _wrong_ for a reparations balloon to
| float.
| infamouscow wrote:
| Probably not whilst the sitting vice president put 1500
| people in prison for marijuana violations and then laughed
| about when she was asked if she'd ever smoked marijuana.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| *lives.
| [deleted]
| FpUser wrote:
| Citizens and permanent residents. I wish this was extended to any
| person charged in the US (tourists, work permits etc).
| jmyeet wrote:
| No one is serving prison time for Federal marijuana possession
| charges. It is however a potential felony with all that entails
| (eg finding a job, renting a house, voting). So this is positive
| but there's two things worth pointing out.
|
| 1. The core problem here is America's scarlet letter system of
| being a felon. This forever makes you a second class citizen.
| This system needs to be reformed so that those who have served
| their time automatically get their record expunged; and
|
| 2. Let's not forget that Biden was one of the chief architects of
| Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill that ushered in this era of mass
| incarceration and the disastrous "war on drugs". The 1990s saw
| the Democratic Party hijacked by neoliberalism, which has been a
| disaster for working people.
| codazoda wrote:
| The war on drugs started around 1971 under Nixon. Clinton added
| "three-strikes" in 1994.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > The core problem here is America's scarlet letter system of
| being a felon
|
| I wish more people understood this.
|
| "Felons shouldn't get a vote" makes common sense on the
| surface, until one picks away the surface just a little and
| realizes that the easiest way to politically disenfranchise an
| opponent would be to gain just a little more power than them
| and then make something core to their identity illegal.
|
| Stripping voting rights due to a conviction for any crime is a
| _huge_ incentive to wield the law as a political cudgel.
|
| (Besides, you'd think that Americans, of all people, given the
| way they got their country, would grok the notion that
| sometimes people who break the law are on the right side of
| history).
| theonemind wrote:
| I think unequal enforcement of the law makes for a huge
| problem generally. I think we as a society should have
| throwing the book at legislators as the first order of
| business, and they should live under heavy scrutiny and
| enforcement of the letter of the law first.
| dayvid wrote:
| If rich people were charged as much as poor people for drug
| charges, the war on drugs would be over tomorrow.
|
| I know so many rich people who joke about doing cocaine and other
| illegal substances. Even the president's son has video of him
| repeatedly smoking crack cocaine and no charges are put against
| him (https://time.com/5952773/hunter-biden-memoir-beautiful-
| thing...). George W Bush allegedly did cocaine and no one cared:
| (https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/800a1BushCocaine.pdf)
|
| There's not many other laws where rules are applied so unevenly
| as drug charges. It just becomes a freebie police can use to
| arrest someone they don't like.
| quantified wrote:
| When Madison Cawthorne outed his peers recently as doing drugs,
| the problem was his outing, not the drugs. Let's be real, as
| long as the productive citizens remain productive, their drug
| use by and large really isn't a problem.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-06 23:00 UTC)