[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)