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.
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.
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 § 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.
This is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
Treaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated.
Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA.
Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
The UN can file a complaint and have an injunction imposed by the Supreme Court to stop the Executive Order/Law.
Would love to see the front page of the NYTimes as the UN stops the Dem Prez from limiting drug schedules. That would be very eye opening for the liberal media and what all these climate change treaties are going to be like and hopefully will be an example as to WHY people fought the Kyoto Protocols.
“As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries:
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties.
The treaty isn't about prosecuting crimes its about adhering to international drug policy so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others. In this way, the UN does have regulatory input. It's all "voluntary"; we can always withdraw from the treaty or ignore it.
Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.
> so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others
that’s a vast oversimplification, but sure
> you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6
no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states.
again, i’m not a lawyer.
my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing.
and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves:
The UN can not stop congress from changing a law nor can they obtain an injunction to stop congress from changing a law nor can they obtain a court order to undue an act of congress nor can they stop congress from partially violating a treaty.
Reference:
"What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and therefore the later one will prevail. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’s constitutional powers."
That's wrong, the CSA allows for the executive to temporarily change schedules and only for a matter of safety. The spirit of that part of the law is actually adding more substances and not removing substances that are on the law.
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.
> 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.
>[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.
Good luck; it's scheduled under US Treaty with the UN and governed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs.
>>"The CND is mandated to decide on the scope of control of substances under the three international drug control conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988 Conventions)."
The US was the main driver behind those treaties. Amending, formally pulling out or just straight up ignoring them is mildly embarrassing, but in no way a showstopper.
It was not. UK/EU were large factors since it was an extension of the agreements made during the League of Nation formation. The original UN secretary notes indicate specifically this is true; especially since INTERPOL was created for drug policing in the first place.
The US has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.
Well, they just voted on cannabis reforms recommended by the WHO two years ago, and the votes seemed to be split nearly 50-50.
Article 23 of the 1961 Convention will allow the eventual teatotalling minority to maintain their stricter controls while allowing the remainder of the Parties to operate without contradiction to their constitutional obligations, vis-a-vis legalization of non-therapeutic adult use of cannabis.
"A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential.[17] However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol."
“As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries:
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
Do you have a reference link to the amendment that you are claiming nullifies this?
Or are you claiming that Article 23 was amended such that Party states cannot be selectively stricter than the Convention?
What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties.
The treaty isn't about prosecuting crimes its about adhering to international drug policy so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others. In this way, the UN does have regulatory input. It's all "voluntary"; we can always withdraw from the treaty or ignore it.
Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.
I was directly quoting the 2nd paragraph of article 6:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states.
again, i’m not a lawyer.
my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing.
and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves:
Article 6 of the US Constitution means that ratified treaties pre-empt state law. It has nothing to do with federal law. See Ware v. Hylton (1796) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Treaties that conflict with federal law are null and void; Congress has to pass legislation if they want to make any such conflicting requirements effective. The same applies to treaties that attempt to restrict constitutional rights: such provisions have no force nor can Congress enact them. That would require an amendment.
I don't know about Canada's Constitution or laws; the USA has Article 6 that specifically makes Treaties the law of the land. Did Canada change the schedule of cannabis or just simply create a legal framework for possession, sale and decriminalization? Scheduling is the authority of the CND of the UN. If they didn't reschedule it perhaps that's a loophole they exploited; maybe the US can do the same, maybe our laws or Article 6 prevents us; not sure. Good question.
"The book has been denounced as alarmist and inaccurate in the scientific and medical communities because [the author] claims that cannabis causes psychosis and violence; many scientists state that he is drawing inappropriate conclusions from the research, primarily by inferring causation from correlation as well as cherry picking data that fits his narrative, and falling victim to selection bias via his use of anecdotes to back up his assertions."
> 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
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.
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.
It can prevent people from running or working for legal marijuana businesses in states where it is legal, meaning a history of uneven enforcement continues to affect the legal marijuana industry.
Us pop: 331,893,745
% Pop w/Felony: 8%
Felony pop: 26,551,499
Pardon pop: 6,500
% Felony Pardoned: 0.02%
Unfortunately, the 8% of population with a felony includes state felonies, not just federal. Wikipedia claims 6,106,327 [0] as the 2016 total felony population but only includes states. 20M federal felony population seems large. In 2020 66,761 federal felonies were adjudicated with a 94.4% conviction rate [1], so annual rate of 62,755. Of those felonies "Drug" was 18,418 with a 92.6 conviction rate, so 17,055. If the total population of pardoned people is 6,500, that is a bit over 1/3 of felony drug convictions in 2020 alone.
Given a conviction growth rate of about 5% over 30 years ending with 62,755, there would be a federal felony population of 936,422. That is barely 1M much less 20M. Something is off about the numbers.
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.
“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”.
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.
Trump built his political base on questioning Obama’s citizenship, among other racist dog whistles he’s used. That movement was a direct reaction to having a black President.
Trump built his political base on the fact that so many non-tech areas got left behind when tech became big money.
Trump actually stood in front of a bunch of businessmen and told them to their face if they moved their manufacturing out of the US he'd slap them with tariffs.
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"
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.
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.
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.
He was already being publicly executed by half the country for wearing a tan suit while being black, he didn't have "old white dude" lines of political credit.
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.
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.
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.
He was already dangerously unpopular at a time when democrats can't afford it. I was thinking this would be an easy win for him, I honestly don't know why he waited this long. I wouldn't be surprised if he does something else high profile to try to win approval. What else would you expect
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.
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.)
I agree that he put far too much effort into bipartisanship but I do think some of that showed how successful all of the attacks on him as some kind of radical extremist were. He felt, probably not incorrectly, that there were a fairly large number of people who were willing to give him a chance but would potentially turn on him if he pushed quickly enough that the “radical black activist” attacks started to get traction.
Contrast with Joe Biden, who is an old white guy with working class roots and half a century in politics with a solid, non-threatening track record. There’s almost nothing he could do which will get that many people to be like “I thought I knew him but not this”.
First, consider Obama, who claims himself to have policies of a Reagan Republican, did not want to legalize marijuana. Then, after considering that, listen to all the excuses. Rescheduling marijuana was one pen stroke away from him for 8 years.
I’d also add that this wasn’t just a mood change but a response to new laws in several states. When each of those changes happened, some people predicted the downfall of society but by now you have a number of years of evidence that the main effect is a ton of extra tax revenue. That won’t change the really committed but I know more than a few people who basically moved their position to “it’s no worse than alcohol and stoners don’t crash their cars as much” after seeing that.
Obama is centrist, and even basic prison and drug policy reform is not a centrist concern. Biden is too, but the Overton window on marijuana has shifted a bit.
Biden is doing the smallest tangible thing, which is great, but hardly earth shattering.
The same reason Obama was opposed to gay marriage then changed his mind. The values of society change over time. You need a critical mass of support before it becomes politically viable. That takes time. Now is the time.
Weed wasn't as big of an issue back then, and I don't recall any states that had legalized it (except maybe for "medical" use) at the time. I mean Obama also opposed gay marriage when he started his term; the left has moved left incredibly quickly over the last ~10 years
> the left has moved left incredibly quickly over the last ~10 years
Have they? Most on the left said and would still say Obama was a relatively standard Democrat and not particularly progressive, especially compared to someone like Bernie Sanders.
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.
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.
> I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there.
When you (plural) are making 6-figures a year, living in some high class inner suburb, working for some employer who has tons of money sloshing around, you don't need to be good at playing the game because you can just pay your way.
Poor communities need to actually be good at playing the game in order to be heard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 22½ 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.
Because it's so short, it doesn't actually say very much. Nearly all of its application is a matter of interpretation spanning literally millions of pages.
That’s the problem. Some parts read quite simply, others require decades of study (and even then the top legal minds in the US can disagree on what the word mean).
Of course they do! The whole point of being a top legal mind is so that you can disagree convincingly about laws so that you can bring about the results you want.
If every november everyone in the community got together and rewired eachother's houses, I think it would be very wise to require the NEC be taught to all students.
Of course most people are never going to be arguing cases before the supreme court or writing laws, and those would require far more expertise than anyone needs. At the same time, most people will never be mathematicians but we still have math classes. No one is becoming a master in a subject from primary education, but they should have some basic literacy in the subject and a foundation to build upon.
There was such a standardized test when I was in high school, for what it's worth. And some states still have them, and some require a passing grade on them to graduate from high school.
What are the tests that people have to take to gain US citizenship?
While people born in the US automatically have citizenship, my personal belief is that people should have to pass the citizenship tests to get the right to vote.
btw, I'm in Australia, and our voting is compulsory (or at least being enrolled and being crossed off as submitting a ballot paper, the vote itself is secret).
I think if we're going to set tests for citizenship for foreigners before they're allowed to become citizens, why shouldn't the same tests apply to locals?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I also didn't really know. High school was thirty years ago, at my school civics was an optional class taught by the football coach, and when learning about how the government works the details of pardons aren't terribly important.
I'm sure I read some textbook that said the president can pardon Federal crimes, but my test was something along the lines of "what powers does the executive branch have" and "the pardon" was a good enough answer.
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.
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.
Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution.
The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.
> Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution.
Good catch, thanks for the correction.
> The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.
In terms of terminology used every day, you're right. But really, federal authority underlies both of those two legal and judicial systems. It wouldn't violate any separation of powers concern for Congress to amend the rules such that DC local law violations go straight to the US district court, unlike what would be true if DC were a state.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I fondly recall his speech he gave calling out the MAGA republicans as a danger to the country and right wing media losing their mind over the “fascist” speech.
Is the guy a doddering old fool or a dangerous demagogue? It can’t be both simultaneously
...which he apparently forgot all about the very next day. I don't know what they had him juiced up with (maybe Pervitin, appropriately?) but that's the most coherent I've ever seen him before or since.
The simple solution to the contradiction you propose is: He is a doddering old fool, who is controlled by dangerous demagogues. (And actually, this might describe his predecessor as well.)
But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate when they occasionally do something good (regardless of their motivations), and this is one of those times.
Well we’re have to agree to disagree then. I also don’t think trump was being controlled. These guys are not always on, but you can see that both of them are making decisions and those decisions taking place.
There’s no drug in the world that makes someone go from doddering to able to give long speeches and stay on point.
There was no shortage of left leaning politicians in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc that were harping on the whole "criminalization is making drug problems worse" thing. Prior to the homogenization of politicians rhetoric in the 2010s I'd say it was a solid 30% of politicians on the left and 20% on the right.
So excuse me for being a little cynical when one of the guys from the "no we'll just use the state jackboot to solve all the problems" camp is pardoning people.
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.
So I take it you know fully well the entirety of what people want and what the government has been willing to give? Or is this something that happens to be coincidental? The argument doesn't add up to me. Occam's Razor errs on the side of this being a political move, given the timing and the fact that a pardon isn't legalization. Did Biden ask for congress to send him a legalization bill? The federal government's reputation didn't suddenly change here. So no, this isn't really what people want.
Just like the government can give people what they want, only when it is convenient to do so, this talking point also seems to come up when convenient, but it isn't true.
What is your estimate of the number of people who are eligible for this pardon?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What position exactly? That good things done for cynical reasons is superior to nothing ever done? To me that seems plainly logical
I appreciate your idealistic opining but when you look at the reality of the competition, what Biden has done lately is just on another level. It’s unfortunate indeed that democracy has been so thoroughly corrupted by late stage capitalism, but it doesn’t make sense to lament the times it does something useful
I guess I concern myself less with how I think systems should operate and more with how I observe them to actually operate. If you assume that you see reality with your eyes instead of wish reality into existence I find that you generally get better results.
sure, but to truly observe what is actually happening, one must acknowledge that essentially nobody ever tries to truly observe what is actually happening, rather, everyone continues to willfully participate in the kayfabe delusion that elected officials Actually Do Stuff when by and large they Just Pretend To By Making Meaningless, Yet Applauded Gestures. which the not-truly-observing electorate then takes as reason to reelect them. over and over again. and nothing changes.
this reality of the situation simply must be acknowledged if ones wishes to truly observe how these systems actually operate.
Okay, I'll bite. "Pontual"? Are Google and I missing something? The top result is a Google Translate rendering of the Portuguese word "pontual" as "one-off" in English, which kind of fits your intent, I guess. However, various P->E dictionaries translate the word as punctual or sporadic. (Any Portuguese speakers who can shed some light for me on the difference between Google Translate and the dictionaries?) I didn't see any Google results (in the ones I scanned) indicating pontual had been appropriated into English. Am I just not hip to the latest slang?
In general, they are. A direct democracy (or referendums etc) would more directly reflect this. Being a republic, they are supposed to also prorect the ideals/structure of the country to safeguard the rights of minority groups (not really an issue in this context, but wanted to point that out).
> Oh no please politicians stop doing things your constituents want you to do in hopes of success in future re-election campaigns!
Can you show me to the national grassroots movement/lobby to grant pardons for federal simple marijuana possession crimes? I have a cousin who was convicted of it in 1995, and he thinks it's the reason why the federal government won't accept his application for employment. I'm not looking for the legalization movement, because that's not what we were talking about here.
But I definitely want to know who the guys are that got Biden to agree to this pardon. They are clearly an effective group and I want to get involved somehow.
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.
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.
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.
> Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later.
He’s directed the officials that are empowered by law to change its status without Congress doing anything to begin the process by which that would happen. So, its not just a symbolic act that may effect that sooner or later.
> Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana-legalization laws in the two states. The federal government also will not make it a priority to close down recreational marijuana stores, so long as the stores abide by state regulations, according to the memo.
The Attorney General de-prioritizing a crime sounds like a cop-out, but eliminating the incentive for federal agents to chase down a type of crime means those agents effectively won't enforce those laws...because they'll get dinged for wasting time that should be spent on actual priorities.
Here's an example of how the federal restriction can still be a pain to Colorado pot stores:
> Because pot is still illegal federally, banks will likely continue to refuse marijuana business accounts, employers can continue to fire workers who smoke pot off-the-job and marijuana users who receive federal aid or live in federal housing will remain at risk.
IIRC, it wasn't at all uncommon for state residents to think that they could smoke worry free b/c of state legalization, only to realize too late that their employer technically receives federal aid and now had the right to fire them. And even if the the U.S. Attorney General says "nah we probably won't care about that"...a lot of employers are going to err on the side of caution.
Since Biden said that he's directed the government to look into things that are on the path to legalization, that mentality is likely to trickle down to every part of the government. Private employers might still be anal though.
> What are the headaches and how do they solve it?
I live in California, where marijuana is legal.
The headaches here are that federal police sometimes go bonkers if they find totally minor stuff like edibles or paraphernalia during some sort of inspection or traffic stop that they do on federal land.
Oh, easy, just don’t carry anything on federal land.
Not so easy.
- Any BLM land is federal. Some people take their guns to BLM land for shooting. Better not have any marijuana related stuff on you when you do that (even if you’re just accompanying and not shooting).
- Any national park is federal land.
- Some local extracurricular activities happen on federal lands. Little league sports teams, Boy Scouts, etc. Again, not that you have to be using at the time, but if you get into an accident at one of these facilities and the federal police sees the state-legal stuff in your car, you can be charged with a federal crime for that.
- Any federal building and attached properties like parking lots. For example, if you’re going to the VA to pick up a friend who just had some medical treatment and have an accident, the investigating federal officer can charge you if you have state-legal marijuana goods.
- Sometimes you don’t even know when you are on or are traveling through federal land, so you can’t always prepare. For example, the Laguna Seca race track is near (borders on?) federal lands with federal roads and federal police, but the scope of the federal lands is not always clearly marked. So choosing which roads you take to the track determines whether you are breaking the law or not.
- Most major airports are federal. As such, even a flight from SFO to LA is supposed to be free of state-legal marijuana.
I don’t know how often possession is prosecuted in these situations, but there are enough stories bouncing around that it’s slightly concerning given that, imho, the number of stories should be zero.
The solution is to have the message from the top being that they don’t want to see these charges ever in CA and similar stares (waste of time), and any extracurricular behavior like roughing someone up or treating them like a criminal will result in an administrative action against the officer.
I doubt this will happen soon.
I think the best we can hope for is for prosecutors and senior officers to be consistently dismissive about any low key possession charges that junior officers make.
For what it's worth, the only thing stopping the federal agents from arresting you off of federal land for a joint is that it's not a priority for them, and they aren't going to be giving you a traffic ticket to notice it in passing. If you yelled that you were smoking weed across the street from FBI headquarters but on CA land they totally could go arrest you.
Or, to put it a different way. It's not that it's legal in CA. It's that the state won't do anything about it.
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.
> This letter provides information about the early implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act's removal of Selective Service and drug conviction requirements for Title IV eligibility, as well as actions that institutions must take as these changes are implemented in phases across award years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. Certain other aspects of the law being implemented are discussed in separate communications.
he's also moving toward removing it from the classification that would leave it as a scheduled drug federally and urging state govs to legalize it locally.
> Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances. This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.
I'm not constitutional lawyer, but those sound like things only the legislature can do, which is beyond his control. The things he has done are things the executive has in it's power.
Fully legalizing marijuana does require legislative action. The executive might have the power to ask the FDA to remove it from schedule 1, but by international treaty (ratified by the legislature) the US is required to enforce restrictions against marijuna according to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
> but by international treaty (ratified by the legislature)
The Senate alone.
> Fully legalizing marijuana does require legislative action
Rescheduling it subject to treaty restrictions from treaties in force, but Presidents can and have withdrawn the US from treaties without Congressional action. This may be unlikely in this case, but does not exceed executive power.
Amending the treaty requires a bunch of other countries plus the Senate, and modifying the status of marijuana inconsistent with the treaty while it is in force would take a change in law by Congress (but would violate the treaty.)
Note that the current treaty status only requires medical use / prescription requirements, so it could be substantially less restricted than it currently is federally without running into treaty issues.
> Presidents can and have withdrawn the US from treaties without Congressional action. This may be unlikely in this case, but does not exceed executive power.
Can you give an example? I am not aware of any authority granted to the executive to override the legislature in this way. Is there an explicitly granted loophole or are these cases of executive overreach?
They also have the ability to initiate or request that proceedings initiate under the Convention to have cannabis deleted from the schedules.
edit: but apparently, besides that or whatever other options the executive branch review discovers, or whatever the judicial branch comes up with, you are right
I have a firm belief that presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators, of either party, that are standing in the way of things that have overwhelming popular support.
Instead, they just throw treats to their base when they're in trouble. Treats that are written on water. If I hear another thing about the Dreamers.
People keep saying that he can't do anything because he's not a dictator. He can't do anything because he doesn't believe in it, and even if he did doesn't have any ideological standards for his Congressional party that would ever get him majority support for anything that doesn't have lobbying checks behind it.
He did? Just not on this point or student loans. The inflation reduction act had been blocked in the senate by his own party defectors and he managed to get them to flip in a last minute political coup on what the republicans thought was going to happen
> presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators
And how, exactly, do you propose he do that, given the current political landscape in the US?
Congress is gridlocked. Incumbents almost never lose their seats. The people who care enough to vote and support the issues are already voting as hard as they can.
This announcement? This is him doing what he can, both in terms of his legal ability to change things, as the chief executive, and in terms of using the bully pulpit, making clear where his and his administrations' priorities lie.
Basically, it sounds like you're saying "if the President can't force the legislation he wants to materialize and get through a Congress that is historically dysfunctional, that means he doesn't really care about the issue."
> And how, exactly, do you propose he do that, given the current political landscape in the US?
This can always be an excuse. Things can't be done because they can't be done. The fact is that he's giving speeches about how much he hates China and Russia, and not about legalizing pot.
He's also one of the engineers of the shitty situation that we're in, he's had an abusively and militantly anti-drug pol his entire career, so I'm not ever going to be convinced by this woe is me lark. He's not doing his best, he's being pushed (if he's even being adequately informed.) The best case scenario is that some people in his administration think that drug law reform is important, either morally or politically. There is no scenario in which the actual Biden is sympathetic towards drug users, or regretful of the lives that he personally contributed to ruining over drugs.
> how, exactly, do you propose he do that
The answer is do politics. If he doesn't know how to do politics, it would be better if someone else were doing the job.
> he's had an abusively and militantly anti-drug pol his entire career
Ok sure, not only that, but he is the president who has the least number of spare brain cells to devote to an issue that he opposes on principle.
And yet of all the presidents we've had in the past 4 decades, it wasn't the B-movie star, nor the frat boy, not the draft dodger(s), nor the iconoclast reality TV star, nor even our first and only Black president -- but Biden the Old Catholic who actually got this seemingly simple reform with simple possession of pot.
As you said, he's the guy with the least reason and capacity to get it done, and yet here we are. How are you managing to complain that what he did was so simple and miniscule, and yet no one else came close to doing it?
> The best case scenario is that some people in his administration think that drug law reform is important, either morally or politically. There is no scenario in which the actual Biden is sympathetic towards drug users, or regretful of the lives that he personally contributed to ruining over drugs.
I wouldn't be too sure that Biden had staff more devoted toward drug reform than Obama [0]. But I guess you're stuck with that position since you can't fathom that Biden personally pushed for reform. So how did Biden end up with this successful drug reform team, just random chance? If Biden is so stridently anti-drug, so absolutely useless toward pushing reform as you think he must be, then how did that not trickle down to his senior staff and who they hired and what the prioritized?
> The answer is do politics. If he doesn't know how to do politics, it would be better if someone else were doing the job.
Politics is all about building consensus through compromise and collaboration. Biden may hate marijuana reform, but he prioritized and executed in a way that past presidents didn't, ostensibly because he knew it was something that lots of people love. How is that not great politics?
Biden still deserves the criticism that he does not believe in marijuana reform and may not follow through any further. For example, he excluded/discriminated members of his own cabinet that admitted to marijuana use while choosing a Vice President that admitted to marijuana use, which is puzzling.
> He's not doing his best, he's being pushed (if he's even being adequately informed.)
If this is true, then this is politics working as intended.
Seriously, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work: The officials we elect do what we, the people, want, not just push their personal beliefs at all costs.
I would 1000% rather elect someone I agree with on 50% of issues, who is willing to be swayed by popular opinion, than someone I agree with on 80% of issues, who is going to try to enforce their personal beliefs as law no matter what the people actually want.
He's being pushed? He promised to do this himself during the campaign. There is no credible evidence of any kind that he did this because he was "being pushed". In any case, it's the right move, and he did the right thing, and honestly, people like you need to pipe down, relax, smoke a fucking joint, be honest, and give him credit here where credit is due.
As for Biden "knowing how to do politics", you might want to spend some time studying Biden's astonishing legislative results over the past few months. He's apparently quite good at politics.
Just for fun: these "people in his [Biden's] administration" you speak of...who chose those people? I'm a little confused. Perhaps you can clear this point up.
Just be honest: you have 937 axes to grind and you are desperate to avoid giving Biden any credit, ever, for anything.
> I have a firm belief that presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators
That’s exactly what he just did with the pardons. He’s signaling to voters that he wants to legalize it and needs the right partners in Congress to make it happen. From your other comments I don’t get the impression you’re open to discussing the implications so much as you just want to complain about Biden.
He doesn't need congress to "legalize it" he only needs the DEA and FDA to unscheduled it. He can do that as expeditiously as he likes with an executive order.
Wait, genuinely confused here. Do we really want the president to make unilateral executive moves overriding the existing organizations with actual experts on how to do things? Isn't that kind of bad and dictatorial? Weren't these organizations originally created because the president isn't an expert in drugs and therefore should have a fleet of drug experts with the authority to make decisions?
Ah the "expert fallacy." No, there are very few "experts." Mostly just career deep-staters or unelected-bureaucrats or whatever else you want to call them. Just look at the great results we've gotten so far from the "fleet of drug experts."
I mean yeah I think the FDA, CDC, NIH, OSHA, EPA etc. have done some really awesome shit compared to when we didn't have them. The EPA in particular is doing such a good job moneyed lobbyists are preemtively trying to cut off their ability to regulate emissions.
Yeah that opioid epidemic was some "really awesome shit." What would we ever do without the FDA and their regulatory capture in the pharma-industrial complex?
I mean frankly the opioid epidemic could only be discovered because of organizations like the CDC tracking stuff like this, so yeah that's pretty awesome. Remember that before we had organizations like the CDC and the FDA things like opioids had no regulation at all. These aren't perfect organizations and we should always be critical and pushing them to do better, but it is also vitally important to acknowledge they are worth having around at all.
Wow, that is certainly moving the goal posts faster than QAnon and make me question why on earth would we trust the same experts that have a history of lying. God I remember the propaganda they spewed years ago about marijuana making my testicles shrink and that it was a gateway to meth.
Except your argument doesn't hold water. Biden isn't "in trouble"; his approval rating has actually been steadily rising of late, and this policy change reportedly took some time to work on.
You also really need to do some homework on the US House and the degree to which gerrymandering has made it completely impossible for your dreams of "appeals to voters" to work.
Student debt forgiveness is also something that only the legislature can do - Nancy Pelosi admitted this as recently as a year ago. Biden doesn't have the power to forgive student debt by himself, but he's doing it anyway, it's blatantly illegal and no-one cares.
> and pardoning those convicted of simple possession without preventing somebody tomorrow from being arrested for simple possession.
He is also directing the AG and Secretary of HHS is reexamine the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act which is the process in law which is needed to change the legal regime applicable to it without Congressional action.
He’s not a dictator who can rewrite law at a whim.
The student debt changes are substantial even if it's not free college. The more important part of the package is the changes to the terms of repayment:
From the press release[1]:
Make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers by:
Cutting monthly payments in half for undergraduate loans. The Department of Education is proposing a new income-driven repayment plan that protects more low-income borrowers from making any payments and caps monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income—half of the rate that borrowers must pay now under most existing plans. This means that the average annual student loan payment will be lowered by more than $1,000 for both current and future borrowers.
Fixing the broken Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program by proposing a rule that borrowers who have worked at a nonprofit, in the military, or in federal, state, tribal, or local government, receive appropriate credit toward loan forgiveness. These improvements will build on temporary changes the Department of Education has already made to PSLF, under which more than 175,000 public servants have already had more than $10 billion in loan forgiveness approved.
This perhaps by far the bigger set of changes because it ensures the terms of remaining and future loans remain serviceable and proportionate to the actual earning potential of the recipient, which is half the problem with the system (at least if you simply must run it this way).
The student loan system is not the real problem, and it's less of a problem now than before Obama (one of the few things that he did good on imo.) The problem is how expensive college is, not these games with paperwork.
He could expand funding for colleges, or create more of them, so they have to compete on prices. This would benefit everybody instead of the minority that signed up for bad loans.
He doesn't have the power to change the law on his own. He's requested that the justice department reschedule the drug. I'm not sure what more within his power would allow him to "whole ass" this.
Tell DEMOCRATS he would veto any legislation until they pass whatever he wants. They can do it, they have the votes and have passed legislation with 0 Republican support. But that is far from necessary here.
With regard to Marijuana and the controlled substances act, Biden could issue an executive order to change the schedule of any substance right away. He could also issue an EO for the DOJ/IRS to change any regulations regarding marijuana that impact legal states or MJ related prosecutions.
He has a lot more power than this action implies, especially regarding things that aren't made law via statue but regulations set by executive branch departments.
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.
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 forming that consensus.
Voters already agree the laws need to change. It's congress holding us back against the will of the people who elected them. Republicans have already spoken out against this pardon.
Well, that's to be expected. If it was The Orange Man who'd done this, you can take an educated guess at who'd be speaking out against it. Congress is a middle school playground.
This was not symbolic. There are thousands of people for whom this action is the farthest thing from symbolic. Thousands of people who will be released from cages and able to see their families again. This pardon is absolutely making a difference in a lot of people's lives. If the justice department reschedules the drug, and other states pardon their prisoners as he's asked them to then the impact will be much much greater.
Biden admin has been making a lot of symbolically valuable half-measure gestures. If substantive change follows on each, he could be the greatest president since FDR. Or, he could lose re-election and we're left with a bunch of impotent symbols that are gradually undone.
I'm still cynical, but slightly more optimistic today.
Some historians believe FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor ahead of time and allowed it to take place in order to have a pretext to enter the war, essentially starting WW2.
A) This is absolutely a fringe belief, if it is believed at all. Cite a source if you think it could be true.
B) World War II started two years earlier than Pearl Harbor, when Hitler invaded Poland. The idea that FDR started WWII is the most ludicrous, revisionist idea I've ever heard about history.
Not to be the bearer of bad news but it actually suggests an election season and not a mentality shift. We're gonna need to vote the average age of congress down about 20 years to see any realistic change on this IMO.
I saw this on Reddit and it resonated. Yes, it’s the election season and we’re seeing democracy in action: that’s when elected officials do things you like and then you vote for them again. Not sure why you’re making it sound like a bad thing.
If I elect someone to lead the country for 4 years, I’d prefer they lead the country for at least 3.75 of those years, not for two 4-6 month stints in 4 years.
It's bad because there are people that have been sitting in prison that could have been released over a year and a half ago, but Biden would rather let them rot for a while longer just so he could score political points at a more convenient time.
Someone higher up in the tree said there wasn’t a single person sitting in federal pen for this. I’m not sure, but I can’t imagine it’s frequently charged federally
From a legal point of view, when is marijuana possession a federal offence and when is it a state offence?
Presumably if you're caught with weed in DC then it's federal. But under what circumstances could you be found in possession with marijuana anywhere else and have it be a matter for the federal government, not the state one?
Shit's illegal and people are mad. Dude tries to cut some folks a break and people are mad. Conclusion: some people are born mad and gonna stay that way regardless.
Intentionally or otherwise you're equating lifestyle choices with sexual orientation and that is not a good look for all the same reasons that the rationale behind conversion therapy is garbage.
Who got a break in this deal exactly? There isn't anybody in federal prison for simple possession charges. It's like him giving every man, woman, and child in Antarctica a pony, only not as efficacious.
No federal law is changing. This is a one time get out of jail free card. People arrested for the same crimes after he pardons current people in prison don't get the benefit.
He doesn’t technically have the unilateral power to prevent future people from being charged federally with simple possession, but in reality, he kind of does (while he’s president).
Sends a pretty clear message to any federal prosecutor that is deciding if they want to charge this. Obviously, the prosecutor can spend the time and effort on this if they want, but it’s time that will probably be better served doing something else if they don’t want to see their work wiped away by the stroke of a pen in the future.
Do you have a link about this? Because he's shown hostility towards marijuana legalization, promised to veto it if it was sent to him, and in the past supported draconian drug laws.
Tweets do not official policy make. If you need examples, you need but examine his tweets all through 2019 and 2020 - they're loaded with promises and plans. This is certainly not exclusive to POTUS.
Show me a policy document along with a bill from that office and I'll consider it more than an election year symbolic gesture.
I think there's a huge difference between tweets with "promises and plans" (especially from before he was actually elected), and tweets saying "I have done this thing. I am doing this other thing."
It's reasonable to be cautious about a politician making a promise in anything but the most legally-binding possible way. It's not reasonable to straight-out call that politician a bald-faced liar if he hasn't demonstrated a propensity for such lies (unlike some I could easily name).
Policy or not, intent was clearly declared. Not vague statements, but specific actions including a direct callout to the secretary of HHS to initiate the rescheduling review.
Obviously we can only wait to see what comes next, but I'm not sure what more you'd want? The review process has to occur, so there's no additional "policy" to be had at the moment. Obviously there's a possibility that rescheduling doesn't happen as a result of that review, but that hardly seems likely given the current political and social climate around marijuana.
Seemed like a pretty straight-forward way to communicate "and this is step 2, which is a work in progress".
His tweets 2019 and 2020 are indeed "loaded with promises and plans", but that's because he was literally not president at that time. Now that he is president, tweets from @POTUS are intended and expected official statements. Sure he could be completely bullshitting with his tweets, but he could do the same with a "policy document"
(White House and executive offices don't produce "bills", other than signing the ones proposed and passed through Congress)
It's a solid political play, and I don't recall seeing that done before (I've only been voting since '97). We'll likely see this kind of thing more often now.
Technically it's not a get out of jail free card, as I understand it, no one is actually held in jail for this right now. Though it does remove it from their records.
The difference is that if they were winning they wouldn't do this. This is textbook vote buying. They are absolutely terrified of the election season after the market collapse, inflation, housing situation, war in ukraine, etc. Easy to lock in quite a few votes throwing a bone. Republicans did the same thing last election season and capitulated (temporarily) on a lot of their positions in order to pull in the independents.
I wish you were correct. But there's a difference between doing something because you know it's right (implore congress to pass legislation on marijuana immediately) and because you need the votes. Only one of them is virtuous even though both ostensibly benefit the people.
I use cannabis daily and am all for it being legalized and those in jail released. However, I cannot join you in a victory lap here because Biden's pardon affects nobody. As far as I know, there isn't anybody in federal prison on simple possession charges. That being the case, this smacks of politicking, optics, and opportunism rather than anything meaningful. If Biden wanted to do something substantial, he'd sign legislation legalizing cannabis (including growing your own).
Hey there was a lot of money to print and send out of the country. Takes a lot of time and effort keeping the printers going. He did the best he could.
This was a campaign promise from Biden, and why shouldn't he reap credit from following through by doing this is an election season. At least he's not on the ballot, and I can think of many worse things politicians regularly do.
Consider also that these federal marijuana convicts were charged due to such simple infractions as carrying weed onto federal property such as national parks (given their greater popularity in recent times).
Agreed - FoxNews has already started attacking this - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pardoning-all-prior-f...
Just go further to the right cesspool to see what you're saying. He'll be attacked for this. I'll grant that he'll be qually praised for it and that it may rally his voters, though I doubt it's a net positive for him in the rhetoric chambers.
What’s ironic is that IMHO it should be at least more of a state level decision, which should be supported by the right. Of course logical consistency isn’t a hallmark of politics. If Pres. Biden supports something then obviously it should be opposed (this works for the left as well).
The “right” has multiple factions just like the “left.” A significant chunk of the right is social conservatives that don’t really care about the legal nuances, just like a dominant chunk of the left is social liberals that feel the same way.
I’m not calling anything a “cesspool” I’m just addressing the issue of “logical consistency.” The GOP comprises Midwestern church moms and oil tycoons. Democrats include social justice activists and Silicon Valley billionaires. The fact that the policies emerging from these coalitions often aren’t logically consistent is no surprise.
i just read the article you linked to - what part of it is “attacking” this? The whole article is basically a rehash of the White house press release (which is fine - it just reports the facts)
Or is the “cesspool” you are describing no longer just consist of people who disagree with you, but has now become people who could disagree with you in the future?
The only things above the fold on the article I see (in a full screen browser winder), are the title, a giant headline that "Study links high-THC marijuana to mental health issues" in a video player, and the same headline immediately below the video player.
Scrolling down the next thing I see is two paragraphs of un-emphasized and dry text describing the announcement, followed by "DEMOCRATIC SENATORS HIT BIDEN FOR 'EXTRAORDINARILY DISAPPOINTING' STANCE ON MARIJUANA" in all caps, highlighted, and underlined (as a link).
After that we have a picture of Biden, and four more paragraphs of text (as above). We round off with a video with the headline ""RAINBOW FENTANYL" WARNINGS OF AHEAD OF HALLOWEEN".
Edit: And finally the main body of the article closes with advertisement for their app, saying this is similar to steps taken by new york, and acknowledging AP. Just to be complete.
I think the context which fox puts this announcement in... really speaks for itself.
Did you watch the video in the article? That’s why I linked it.
The cess pool are the Mark Levins, Bonginos, etc… they are vile.
I’m willing to bet that they will attack this tomorrow.
(edit) Didn't even take until tomorrow courtesy of Hannity - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6313390453112 - (~1.30 in)
many people hide those videos or straight ignore them. i’d be hesitant to say most are going to watch a video, that’s certainly the quickest way for me to ignore your content.
I'll cede that point - the video, in my opinion, made my point and the fact that they went out of their way to include it, to what I concede is a rather factual article still make it seem like an attack to me.
I thought he campaigned on this. If I'm remembering that right, then this isn't so much the case of someone doing something just to try to get reelected (is he even planning on running again?), but rather someone fulfilling the promise they made to the people who elected him the first time.
Campaigning on something and not taking action until midterms is completely different. It is clear if he wasn't scared he wouldn't have taken action at all and both him and his VP has a history of being vehemently opposed to marijuana legalization.
The timing might be strategic, but he did say he'd do it and now he has, so it seems weird to say it was clear he wasn't going to. Biden has a horrible history but he's also been a supporter of things he spoke out against in the past. The degree to which his recent actions or his past actions better reflect his actual beliefs is debatable, but even if it's just for political points, he's doing the things he said he would.
It's an election gimmick for sure. However, there's always a choice of possible election gimmicks - and in the past, this one had never been chosen. Now, it has been. There must be a reason for it - and one may reasonably assume the reason is that there is enough support for relaxing the federal prohibition on marijuana.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The amount of money spent for police and prison and the number of wasted human years (while in prison) is staggering. At the same time, I wish there was better data on the number of people who have permanent mental illness due to drug use. Is there much causation or just correlation?
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.
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.
Fucked up yes, but anyone fucking with drugs that has half a brain knows this, so the ones getting convicted are probably not using them for target practice
Youtube star FPSRussia was just using them for target practice. He ultimately got convicted of possession of hash oil (with intent, seemingly solely because he shared it with his girlfriend). While he plead down to the possesion w/ intent it's my understanding the original charges included prohibited possessor. I don't think he'll get the pardon either since he got a distribution charge for toking with the GF.
Yeah there are definitely scenarios where its some real bullshit, I agree. And it's fucked up that a persons decision to smoke weed essentially removes their second amendment rights. But its still a decision that you can make, you know. It's not like you HAVE to have a gun.
(idk the specifics of the FPSrussia case so won't comment on that)
Paying a guy to sit in the passenger seat packing heat while you handle the dope and the money or paying another guy to store your product at his house and all the other things you need to do to not catch a "gun stacking" multiplier on your petty dealing charge is a luxury that only successful and established dealers can afford.
You just said it though - only successful and established DEALERs can afford. The problem you are describing is a problem of a drug dealer. A drug dealer with a gun is a criminal that ought to catch a charge. That's exactly my point.
> 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.
That could be correct, I didn’t read it closely. I think the total number then is still probably quite low. I’m not disparaging the move and think it’s good but adding perspective.
>Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.
And it's still illegal going forward, which means it's still valid reason for civil asset forfeiture, something the feds are major players in, either directly or through "sharing" with the states.
Not really true. This action amounts to Biden doing something about state-level charges as well. He explicitly encouraged states to follow suit. He also announced that he's reviewing the absurd Schedule 1 designation for marijuana, which is also a huge deal. And today's action moves us a lot closer to real national legalization.
The concern here is that if you are charged federally with marijuana possession, you probably weren't a light user. You were probably a drug trafficker who was associated with gangs and much stronger drugs, and I'm not sure I want those people back on the streets any sooner then necessary
True, but also traditionally Federal marijuana stance has been much more strict than most of the states. I think this action may signal that it is changing.
I'm not in the US and I am aware of the Fed/States law/divide but that's not the most important issue for those of us outside the US.
The truly significantly point about Biden's announcement is that the attitude to marijuana use will almost certainly change worldwide. I don't expect the world to go pot-crazy overnight or such, but as I see it it's a very noticeable (albeit small) crack in the way drug use is policed and this will be echoed to varying degrees worldwide.
The fact that the US president has done this is an indicator to the world that the all-or-nothing/black and white approach to policing drug use is not the correct approach and that it ought to be more nuanced and targeted. And, in my opinion, that's to be welcomed.
It goes without saying there are major problems with drug use and I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach to their use—far from it. However, what Biden's announcement shows the world that not all drugs have equally bad outcomes for users and that this should be reflected generally by grading drug laws more appropriately.
With Biden's words, hopefully drug use will become less of a criminal activity and more of a medical one.
FYI, I'm not a marijuana user—well anyway not a recent one, haven't used it since my student days quite some decades ago.
> 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.
To be clear, 6,500 is the number of individuals receiving a pardon. The percentage of these 6,500 who will be released from prison? Zero - none of these individuals are currently in prison solely for possession of marijuana: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/07/...
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.
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.
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.
This is exactly what it is and it’s strategically stupid because they’ll campaign on that anyway. Might as well do the moral thing and at least not alienate those of us who care if you do the moral thing.
I cam to comment on that portion too. It confuses me that those people weren't simply extradited? Albeit in the obvious cases where it will be a futile catch and release. But I would think those people have massive charges (conspiracy) vs simple possession.
I don’t know which “those people” you refer to but I don’t share your views of any subset of people and that was my point. I want everyone who could benefit under relevant jurisdiction to benefit from this pardon. I don’t want anyone extradited, I don’t have any expectation that people without permanent resident status are charged with conspiracy or otherwise predisposed to some exemption from this.
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.
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.
According to the government, 0 people in prison, but there are many with convictions on their records that the pardons will address. The burden of a conviction extends beyond incarceration.
It’s interesting that different sources have different counts. I wonder how sure they are, and how good the records are. Hopefully some people have some measure of their lives restored.
> It’s interesting that different sources have different counts.
0 is the government’s current count of people who are in federal prison now solely on a federal simple possession charge.
149 is, per the source cited upthread, the number for Fiscal Year 2021 (not clear from the B.I. article if it is at some point in the fiscal year are total in prison at any point over the fiscal year), and the source indicates that’s been rapidly declining; also, Biden issued 75 commutations and 3 pardons in April this year for nonviolent drug offenses, which may be part of the reason that the number of prisoners on simple marijuana possession charges alone in federal prison now is 0.
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.
Park rangers tried to do this to one of my friends and he just ran. They didn’t have guns and they’re too good of a people to really pursue someone for a useless crime. He got away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why wouldn't he legally be able to pardon them via executive order, the same as he can pardon anyone else? The president's pardon power is not restricted to citizens and permanent residents.
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.
> 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).
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.
> "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.
As an example, if you were - for example - a tech billionaire who is on the record as describing the 19th amendment as the end of freedom in the United States, and you wanted to make it impossible for as many women to vote as possible without actually fronting a repeal of that amendment, you could relentlessly support and fund efforts to make common healthcare procedures for women a felony.
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.
I was dissatisfied until about 8 months ago but he’s changed since then. If he can get some sort of voter rights law through I will have full satisfaction.
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
>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"
Not that many people are in jail purely for simple cannabis possession. The important part here is that these people now have their criminal records wiped clean.
Wait, what? There is no such thing as somebody having weed in their pocket in Yosemite National Park in a non-violent way?
I love this reasoning. If there are no non-violent offenders, then every crime is violence. Considering people break laws on accident all the time, it is probably safest to simply imprison the entire population of California by default and have a tribunal of police that decide parole on a case-by-case basis.
That is a hilarious position to take without any proof. I would love to see your stats on how cops and prosecutors are happy to ignore violence at scale, everywhere.
If non-violent crime is indeed rare, would you be eligible for parole in my thought experiment where everybody starts off incarcerated? How could I trust that you wouldn’t violently jaywalk or violently forget the contents of your trunk and bring an apple across state lines?
Serious question: Do you work in or for law enforcement? The only people I’ve ever spoken to that maintain “people that smoke weed are indistinguishable from rapists and murderers” are people whose income in some way relies on holding that opinion.
seems like you mis read. I’m not implying weed smokers at large are violent. Among the ones who are currently in federal prison and eligible for release in this program, the majority were likely violent because their charges were reduced and there’s no way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I’m just a civilian victim of crimes who knows that releasing criminals causes crime.
If you want to see proof, look at crime rates in CA cities, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans . Those cities have been letting prisoners out letting suspects out with no bail.
Almost all crime is committed by a small percentage of people. You don’t have to let many criminals out for big increases in crime.
You’re concerned about the criminals and I’m concerned about the victims.
How is it possible that it is not possible to distinguish between violent and non violent crime? In most cases, violent crime has victims, be they animal, mineral or vegetable.
Your point is that people in jail for weed are probably violent? Based on what?
I’ll repeat my earlier question:
> Serious question: Do you work in or for law enforcement? The only people I’ve ever spoken to that maintain “people that smoke weed are indistinguishable from rapists and murderers” are people whose income in some way relies on holding that opinion.
Also I’ll add my second question:
Since there are only two groups of people, “violent criminals” (since all criminals must be assumed to be violent) and “victims”, what group does someone that’s wrongfully imprisoned fall into? Who exactly do I care about then? Criminal or victim of a shitty criminal system?
Also, would you get parole in the world of “guilty of violent crime until proven innocent” world? I’m fascinated about your willingness to make theoretical statements paired with your allergy to answering theoretical (and while we’re at it, basic factual) questions.
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.
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).
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.
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
The order at the top says it only applies to current US citizens and lawful permanent residents.
So even if they were a lawful permanent resident at the time of their offense, if they aren't anymore at this time (and getting convicted is probably enough to have their visa's revoked), no, it doesn't apply to them. @kragen pointed this out in another comment.
Let alone someone who was never a lawful permanent resident, nope, not pardoned.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what if anything you were asking about, or misinterpreted the question mark on the end of your comment.
The first sentance of the order says it only applies to current citizens or permanent residents. I guess if you were a visa holder at time of offense and had somehow become a citizen or lawful permanent resident since then (which would be hard to do with such an offense), it would apply to you...
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?
As others stated it's to avoid letting smugglers free who were likely working for Mexican cartels. In many cases they were only able to be charged with possession.
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.
Unless it’s a protected class you can discriminate on it, from what I understand.
If they suspect that you’re using it as a stand-in for a protected class, you may be in trouble (not hiring smokers because blacks smoke, for example).
There may be edge cases where something is effectively a protected class. And it may vary from state to state.
Some states bar or limit employers from regulating off-duty conduct by employees. Some don't. Smoking is a common one because it affects insurance costs, but the same legal theory could probably be applied to alcohol or caffeine.
If you want to work at BYU, abstaining from coffee is a condition of employment. This goes for even for people who are not members of its sponsoring church. Just a few years ago, BYU almost lost its ROTC program because a non-LDS colonel didn't want to abide by the university's code [1].
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.
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.
>When Madison Cawthorne outed his peers recently as doing drugs, the problem was his outing, not the drugs.
Do you mean that literally? Whether they're productive or not, it's in the publics interest to know if their representatives are doing cocaine or other drugs. I think that's completely relevant, it affects the thought processes of most regular cocaine users I've known.
Yeah, it's pretty wild how brazen Hunter Biden has been, with essentially zero scrutiny from the liberal media.
My meta-tinfoil hat theory is that stories of his depravity have been intentionally shared by dem insiders to conservative channels to mitigate the national security risk of someone extorting Joe - can't blackmail if the info is already public.
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.
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.
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.
Can you point to any cases of US citizens being denied entry?
The closest I'm aware of is having US citizens overseas be put on the no-fly list, which in practice amounts to the same thing if they can't get to Canada/Mexico either. But hey, they won't be denied entry if they swim across!
Not OP, and I can't answer yes to that, but they like to waive their proverbial dicks around as though they can. You used to be able to drive from Canada back into the US by showing just your US driver's license and birth certificate. About six months before that option went away, I drove across the border with exactly those documents. I hand them over, dude spends a few minutes huffing and puffing, kinda rolling his eyes. Asks me, "Is this all you have?".
Few more minutes pass and he goes, "You know, you're lucky I let you through with this stuff now. In a few months I won't be able to and your butt would be hanging out in Canada tonight. Have a nice day."
Being detained at the border is not legally denial of entry, but it effectively is. Or you can enter, but by doing so you'll forfeit any property you had with you. There are all sorts of loopholes like that, and CBP will happily exploit every one of them.
They can't but they can and will lie to you and tell you they will deny entry. They also can and will threaten to revoke your passport despite no legal basis to do so. They have made both statements to me. If you read above I said they would make "threats" to do so (of the sort a common citizen would probably believe), not that it would actually happen.
I'm not a US citizen, and I've been to the US a few times. The security measures are about the same level as Japan. The "worst" thing that happened to me lately on an airport was an officer talked to me in a friendly tone but took my passport for inspection and returned it to me about 15 minutes later.
The only thing that can remotely be described as "brutal" is when I entered the US via land (from Canada) the first time around 2008 if I remember correctly. They searched out stuff thoroughly and we had to wait about an hour or so. But they were very polite and professional about it. No "threats" or intimidation of any kind.
Not a US citizen but had zero problems flying to US last couple of years. Can't even remember the questions at the passport control point... But there was even a humorous, friendly officer there one time. No bag searches. Sometimes the queues have been long tho... Especially arriving in early morn.
I normally get my bags searched at the public "nothing to declare" area entering Japan and Thailand tho at the customs check point, and sometimes leaving.
No questions or searches ever in Malaysia.
No questions or searches ever entering Hong Kong. If you're e-gate enrolled it's not even an officer at the passport checkpoint, you just scan it and go through a double sided gate. If you have a HKID you don't even need to use your passport for entry, you can scan the ID for entry from international which I think is cool.
No questions or searches ever at Turkey.
Flying into Europe they normally have more questions at passport but no searches.
I'm always honest in my ESTA applications tho, maybe that makes difference.
I have never once made it through US customs in under 3 hours (and always with full search, interrogation, and not being cleared until an HSI detective appears). That's not counting the line, I'm talking the search/interrogation/detention phase. I am a US citizen with good passport, clean criminal record, valid and legal reasons for travel, and full compliance with US border related laws.
If the standard is that People don’t disappear for days and/or completely , then yes US systems is civilized and polite.
The slightest of non conforming information or a honest paperwork mistake in your application can be used to permanently reject a visa,
Even if you been living for many many years , you have to leave in very short time (10-60? Days) if your visa is revoked/expired because you lost your job and potentially upend/split your family some of whom would be citizens if they were born here
Or be deported out by ICE right after serving lengthy sentence despite living in the country your whole life , to a home country you don’t know and never even been.
Despite all the bad press and difficulties US has a better system than most other countries, however if you are unlucky US immigration can upend your life.
It's not how the law is written, as I understand it. It is how it is implemented and that is up to the President, Director of Homeland Security and ICE. Applications used to be returned or clarified when they had been filled out incorrectly. Now they are perfunctorily denied, and the applicant has to file an appeal. This change was brought about by a change in executive policy. I cannot say for sure whether it was started under Obama or Trump, but I did hear that it caught immigration attorneys off-guard. For example, if there is no middle name, they are not supposed to leave it blank. But if they use the wrong magic word to fill the space or cross it out, the application is now denied.
Which way? That's how every country on earth operates. You are not a citizen of a country just because your parents dragged you there when you were young. In fact, the US is almost the only place on earth that grants birth-right citizenship (maybe Canada and Australia do as well?). All other countries think this is absurd.
You're talking about people who were dragged into the US when they were children by their parents.
We were just talking about whether the US is particularly stringent when it comes to border inspections.
> Or be deported out by ICE right after serving lengthy sentence despite living in the country your whole life
Most countries would consider foreign citizens who serve lengthy prison sentences as unwanted visitors and would like very much to get rid of them as soon as possible.
I don't know of a country that welcomes such a thing. Do you know of one?
I don't think Svalbard (territory) imposes any sort of criminal background scrutiny before settlement.
I'm not sure if Vanuatu allows immigration for people who served time in Vanuatu but my understanding is they commonly "forget" to thoroughly check records when people pay the $130k or whatever it is for their passport-by-investment; Comoros was doing the same thing before they shut down their CIP program.
Most countries even emerging economies with poor human rights records have nowhere close to the insane incarceration rate that the U.S. has, so it is far lesser problem anywhere else.
Last time I entered I was (all without being arrested or charged with a crime)
-- forced to strip, cavity searched
-- searched by a dog, who found nothing, and agents
lamented nothing was found, but they later wrote in their report that the dog alerted.
-- tossed in a cell
-- fingerprinted / booked (without being arrested/charged). US citizens entering with passport are not supposed to be fingerprinted.
-- detained for 16 hours
-- Had officials drag me in cuffs to two different hospitals 60 miles apart by prisoner transport van. Taken to second hospital after the first doctor wasn't corrupt enough to go along with their insane claims.
-- Had officials lie to doctors suggesting there were drugs up my ass, then being personally billed for medical services I never consented to. I am still in debt for these medical services I refused and were forced on me in custody.
-- After being seen without my consent, without an official arrest, or even a court order, was served ex-post-facto a warrant signed by the judge AFTER the time a which I was searched/"cared for."
-- forced to perform intimate body functions in full view (like 2 feet in front of me) of agents, who then searched the effects
-- Prevented from sleeping, even when doing so presents no interference or risk to anyone.
-- Dumped at the border with no apology
Here's a comment sharing some of the details last time I went through the border:
And a women sent to the same hospital as me, who was forcefully penetrated in her private orifices at the direction of DHS in circumstances similar to mine:
These detentions are a regular occurrence for me. I'm a US citizen, clean criminal record, never committed a US border related offense. Yes they have also threatened to deny me entry to US and also threatened to revoke my passport as part of their intimidation.
This doesn't sound normal. Your other comment mentions something critical:
> I got thrown on something like this almost a decade ago when I fought alongside the YPG, a US backed Kurdish militia that fought against literal ISIS.
DHS/CBP put me on some fucked up list and now everytime I re-enter the US I get detained, accused of crimes, tossed in holding cell.
So, you're in some kind of a black/gray list possibly caused by involvement in a military conflict. Granted, it sounds absurd they would do this given you were on the US-backed side of the conflict, but still. Your experience is not representative of anything remotely close to what most people go through.
That's a valid point that my personal circumstances are unusual, but after my latest entry I started digging into the court records and saw far more "normal" citizens also experienced similar circumstances to this particular occasion I mentioned at Nogales port of entry (like Ms Cervantes noted above and below, who appears to have been a normal ~18 year old girl). My black/gray listing put me on the express lane into seeing the dark side of border patrol -- but the sad fact is some "unlucky" normal citizens appear to getting this treatment, and once it happens your eyes are revealed to even the normal people this is happening to (and in fact, while I was there CBP officers bragged about putting other innocents through the same thing, including one for having a trans-sexual appendage)
I recommend in particular noted pgs 7-9 under the heading "Ashley’s [redacted] Were Probed without a Warrant, Consent or Any Suspicion of Internal Drug Smuggling"
Imagine a system which welcomes 99 out of 100 people and brutally kills one. I think if I were to read online about people's experiences, it would be dominated by the 99 telling me that no brutal killings occur.
I've never applied for any other kind than a tourist visa (and also never travelled in any other way there), and never had I seen anything different/worse than passing any other border in europe (non EU/schengen ones).
US does seem one of the only/few countries where an illegal immigrant can lead a pretty normal life for years (job, send kids to school, get a doctor, etc.) without getting noticed and deported... in my country for example, there's literally no way to get someone illegal to (eg.) school.
No, I'm leading a pretty normal life as an illegal immigrant in Argentina, and it's not legal to deport me (unless I commit a crime). Most countries don't have the level of government involvement in day-to-day life that many European countries do.
Naturally I'm sure you are law abiding, but I question how easy it is to live and work in Argentina without violating the law (I've heard it's practically a requirement to survive there -- if nothing else the tax laws). Maybe it's just a scam, but I had heard if you file for citizenship (which apparently anyone can do) it makes it harder to get deported?
I read some bizarre reports on baexpats that the easiest way to get deported is actually to follow the official legal residency pathway!
Yes, I'm from europe, here it's pretty impossible to do anything, atleast longterm (sneaking in and doing some under-the-table work for a few weeks and going back.. sure.. staying for years, having kids, etc... no way).
The US is weird because they are far more open to immigrants than many other nations, and extremely lax about illegal immigration (encouraging it even) while at the same being outright inhuman in how they treat the people that do get caught up by border patrol. We should really be doing the opposite of that and be far more strict about controlling illegal immigration while also making sure that the people we deport or turn away at the border are treated with respect and dignity and are well cared for while in our custody.
> 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)
Oh wow, I hadn't caught that. I thought you were mistaken but went back and looked at it again, I think you are correct. That's even more evil.
I wouldn’t call it evil either. As a general rule, don’t do drugs in foreign countries when it’s illegal. If you must, do them in your home country or where they’re made legal.
Fun fact: in some countries it's illegal for citizens to take illegal drugs even if they're abroad in a place where it's legal. E.g. if a Korean smokes weed during a visit to Amsterdam, they can be prosecuted for it upon return to Korea.
Isn't that pretty common? As a Norwegian, there's AFAIK several things I can't do when abroad even if it is legal in the country I visit. Doing drugs is one of those things, I believe.
It's evil. But it's an evil that exists because of optics made necessary by the current political climate. So the blame for that needs to go to the people that make such optics necessary, if you catch my drift.
The implication to me is that you need to write something down when you deport someone, and this is one of the things that get written down. Sure seems like a strange exception to me, but I'd be curious to hear from someone involved in writing it why exactly it was the practically or politically preferred choice.
795 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 356 ms ] threadInteresting articles if you search for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cannabis+poses+quandary
edit: tit for tat, as your username promotes
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.
Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA.
Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
Would love to see the front page of the NYTimes as the UN stops the Dem Prez from limiting drug schedules. That would be very eye opening for the liberal media and what all these climate change treaties are going to be like and hopefully will be an example as to WHY people fought the Kyoto Protocols.
“As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries:
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
But yet, incorrect generalization of Article 6 of the US Constitution:
“Supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
edit: may I remind you that approximately half or more of the states have legalized possession of cannabis, at this point
Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.
that’s a vast oversimplification, but sure
> you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6
no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states.
again, i’m not a lawyer.
my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing.
and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves:
“Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204
and if UNODC is progressing as they are, it may only be a short matter of time before the weight shifts in favor of moving cannabis from Schedule I
the US was at that point about a decade ago, but look now
Reference:
"What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and therefore the later one will prevail. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’s constitutional powers."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-pardons-marijuana-decri...
>>"The CND is mandated to decide on the scope of control of substances under the three international drug control conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988 Conventions)."
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/index.html
The US has been EU/UKs oppression outlet for far too long.
Article 23 of the 1961 Convention will allow the eventual teatotalling minority to maintain their stricter controls while allowing the remainder of the Parties to operate without contradiction to their constitutional obligations, vis-a-vis legalization of non-therapeutic adult use of cannabis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub...
The UN has the final say.
"A similar process is followed in deleting a drug from the Schedules or transferring a drug between Schedules. For instance, at its 33rd meeting, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended transferring tetrahydrocannabinol to Schedule IV of the Convention, citing its medical uses and low abuse potential.[17] However, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has declined to vote on whether to follow the WHO recommendation and reschedule tetrahydrocannabinol."
“As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries:
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
Do you have a reference link to the amendment that you are claiming nullifies this?
Or are you claiming that Article 23 was amended such that Party states cannot be selectively stricter than the Convention?
Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
But yet, incorrect generalization of Article 6 of the US Constitution:
“Supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states.
again, i’m not a lawyer.
my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing.
and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves:
“Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204
and if UNODC is progressing as they are, it may only be a short matter of time before the weight shifts in favor of moving cannabis from Schedule I
the US was at that point about a decade ago, but look now
Treaties that conflict with federal law are null and void; Congress has to pass legislation if they want to make any such conflicting requirements effective. The same applies to treaties that attempt to restrict constitutional rights: such provisions have no force nor can Congress enact them. That would require an amendment.
Apparently they are just flagrantly failing to comply with general portions of the Convention.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964
Ending the prohibition of one and beginning the prohibition of another sounds like an exercise in futility and double-standards.
The alcohol lobby is quite large.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson
In your opinion, how does MJ compare to alcohol in terms of dangerousness?
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-st...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amandachicagolewis/amer...
I think Oregon either has made changes to address this or is close to doing so. This helps at the federal level.
Given a conviction growth rate of about 5% over 30 years ending with 62,755, there would be a federal felony population of 936,422. That is barely 1M much less 20M. Something is off about the numbers.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_t...
1. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs20.pdf
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”.
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.
Trump actually stood in front of a bunch of businessmen and told them to their face if they moved their manufacturing out of the US he'd slap them with tariffs.
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
You need political capital if you make that decision and don't want to be eviscerated in the next election.
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.
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.)
Contrast with Joe Biden, who is an old white guy with working class roots and half a century in politics with a solid, non-threatening track record. There’s almost nothing he could do which will get that many people to be like “I thought I knew him but not this”.
In many ways Biden is more progressive than Obama.
As is society as a whole.
Biden is doing the smallest tangible thing, which is great, but hardly earth shattering.
Have they? Most on the left said and would still say Obama was a relatively standard Democrat and not particularly progressive, especially compared to someone like Bernie Sanders.
Just noting for non-American readers.
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.
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.
When you (plural) are making 6-figures a year, living in some high class inner suburb, working for some employer who has tons of money sloshing around, you don't need to be good at playing the game because you can just pay your way.
Poor communities need to actually be good at playing the game in order to be heard.
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.
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.
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_Bill_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 22½ 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.
Of course most people are never going to be arguing cases before the supreme court or writing laws, and those would require far more expertise than anyone needs. At the same time, most people will never be mathematicians but we still have math classes. No one is becoming a master in a subject from primary education, but they should have some basic literacy in the subject and a foundation to build upon.
While people born in the US automatically have citizenship, my personal belief is that people should have to pass the citizenship tests to get the right to vote.
btw, I'm in Australia, and our voting is compulsory (or at least being enrolled and being crossed off as submitting a ballot paper, the vote itself is secret).
I think if we're going to set tests for citizenship for foreigners before they're allowed to become citizens, why shouldn't the same tests apply to locals?
I mean, you're not wrong, but that's not what the majority of schools' funding is staked upon.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-...
Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning Patty Hearst and members of the Weather Underground?
Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning his half-brother?
Or the non-existent controversy over Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning?
But if what you're fishing for is that Assange did more for the world, was more dis-proportionally persecuted with less legal justification, then yes.
Listing the pardons by appropriateness is just one component that may help analyze the issue. That’s what I meant by asking the question.
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.
Are there more and do you think other administrations have participated in this affront to justice?
> 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
For me, this kind of thing was pretty well covered in high school, and my high school was far from excellent.
I'm sure I read some textbook that said the president can pardon Federal crimes, but my test was something along the lines of "what powers does the executive branch have" and "the pardon" was a good enough answer.
The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.
Good catch, thanks for the correction.
> The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.
In terms of terminology used every day, you're right. But really, federal authority underlies both of those two legal and judicial systems. It wouldn't violate any separation of powers concern for Congress to amend the rules such that DC local law violations go straight to the US district court, unlike what would be true if DC were a state.
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.
Is the guy a doddering old fool or a dangerous demagogue? It can’t be both simultaneously
The simple solution to the contradiction you propose is: He is a doddering old fool, who is controlled by dangerous demagogues. (And actually, this might describe his predecessor as well.)
But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate when they occasionally do something good (regardless of their motivations), and this is one of those times.
There’s no drug in the world that makes someone go from doddering to able to give long speeches and stay on point.
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.
So excuse me for being a little cynical when one of the guys from the "no we'll just use the state jackboot to solve all the problems" camp is pardoning people.
Just like the government can give people what they want, only when it is convenient to do so, this talking point also seems to come up when convenient, but it isn't true.
What is your estimate of the number of people who are eligible for this pardon?
Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Works painfully well all around.
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.
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
posts like this make me think that democracy may have been a mistake after all.
I appreciate your idealistic opining but when you look at the reality of the competition, what Biden has done lately is just on another level. It’s unfortunate indeed that democracy has been so thoroughly corrupted by late stage capitalism, but it doesn’t make sense to lament the times it does something useful
this reality of the situation simply must be acknowledged if ones wishes to truly observe how these systems actually operate.
yeah, punctual
Rhetorical question, of course.
In general, they are. A direct democracy (or referendums etc) would more directly reflect this. Being a republic, they are supposed to also prorect the ideals/structure of the country to safeguard the rights of minority groups (not really an issue in this context, but wanted to point that out).
Can you show me to the national grassroots movement/lobby to grant pardons for federal simple marijuana possession crimes? I have a cousin who was convicted of it in 1995, and he thinks it's the reason why the federal government won't accept his application for employment. I'm not looking for the legalization movement, because that's not what we were talking about here.
But I definitely want to know who the guys are that got Biden to agree to this pardon. They are clearly an effective group and I want to get involved somehow.
(If they exist)
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.
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...
He’s directed the officials that are empowered by law to change its status without Congress doing anything to begin the process by which that would happen. So, its not just a symbolic act that may effect that sooner or later.
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-won...
> Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana-legalization laws in the two states. The federal government also will not make it a priority to close down recreational marijuana stores, so long as the stores abide by state regulations, according to the memo.
The Attorney General de-prioritizing a crime sounds like a cop-out, but eliminating the incentive for federal agents to chase down a type of crime means those agents effectively won't enforce those laws...because they'll get dinged for wasting time that should be spent on actual priorities.
Here's an example of how the federal restriction can still be a pain to Colorado pot stores:
> Because pot is still illegal federally, banks will likely continue to refuse marijuana business accounts, employers can continue to fire workers who smoke pot off-the-job and marijuana users who receive federal aid or live in federal housing will remain at risk.
IIRC, it wasn't at all uncommon for state residents to think that they could smoke worry free b/c of state legalization, only to realize too late that their employer technically receives federal aid and now had the right to fire them. And even if the the U.S. Attorney General says "nah we probably won't care about that"...a lot of employers are going to err on the side of caution.
Since Biden said that he's directed the government to look into things that are on the path to legalization, that mentality is likely to trickle down to every part of the government. Private employers might still be anal though.
I live in California, where marijuana is legal.
The headaches here are that federal police sometimes go bonkers if they find totally minor stuff like edibles or paraphernalia during some sort of inspection or traffic stop that they do on federal land.
Oh, easy, just don’t carry anything on federal land.
Not so easy.
- Any BLM land is federal. Some people take their guns to BLM land for shooting. Better not have any marijuana related stuff on you when you do that (even if you’re just accompanying and not shooting).
- Any national park is federal land.
- Some local extracurricular activities happen on federal lands. Little league sports teams, Boy Scouts, etc. Again, not that you have to be using at the time, but if you get into an accident at one of these facilities and the federal police sees the state-legal stuff in your car, you can be charged with a federal crime for that.
- Any federal building and attached properties like parking lots. For example, if you’re going to the VA to pick up a friend who just had some medical treatment and have an accident, the investigating federal officer can charge you if you have state-legal marijuana goods.
- Sometimes you don’t even know when you are on or are traveling through federal land, so you can’t always prepare. For example, the Laguna Seca race track is near (borders on?) federal lands with federal roads and federal police, but the scope of the federal lands is not always clearly marked. So choosing which roads you take to the track determines whether you are breaking the law or not.
- Most major airports are federal. As such, even a flight from SFO to LA is supposed to be free of state-legal marijuana.
I don’t know how often possession is prosecuted in these situations, but there are enough stories bouncing around that it’s slightly concerning given that, imho, the number of stories should be zero.
The solution is to have the message from the top being that they don’t want to see these charges ever in CA and similar stares (waste of time), and any extracurricular behavior like roughing someone up or treating them like a criminal will result in an administrative action against the officer.
I doubt this will happen soon.
I think the best we can hope for is for prosecutors and senior officers to be consistently dismissive about any low key possession charges that junior officers make.
Or, to put it a different way. It's not that it's legal in CA. It's that the state won't do anything about it.
He's forgiving student debt without doing free college, and pardoning those convicted of simple possession without preventing somebody tomorrow from being arrested for simple possession.
Has he made sure that people with drug convictions are eligible for student loans? That seems like a conjunction of the two things that he's half-assed. If he hasn't, there's no one in the administration that actually cares about this, it's just pure midterm pandering.
edit:
I think this may be what I was looking for: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents//2021/06/17/2021-1...
> This letter provides information about the early implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act's removal of Selective Service and drug conviction requirements for Title IV eligibility, as well as actions that institutions must take as these changes are implemented in phases across award years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. Certain other aspects of the law being implemented are discussed in separate communications.
Except when contradicted by the constitution or established legal process as a Party state.
The Senate alone.
> Fully legalizing marijuana does require legislative action
Rescheduling it subject to treaty restrictions from treaties in force, but Presidents can and have withdrawn the US from treaties without Congressional action. This may be unlikely in this case, but does not exceed executive power.
Amending the treaty requires a bunch of other countries plus the Senate, and modifying the status of marijuana inconsistent with the treaty while it is in force would take a change in law by Congress (but would violate the treaty.)
Note that the current treaty status only requires medical use / prescription requirements, so it could be substantially less restricted than it currently is federally without running into treaty issues.
Can you give an example? I am not aware of any authority granted to the executive to override the legislature in this way. Is there an explicitly granted loophole or are these cases of executive overreach?
“Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204
edit: but apparently, besides that or whatever other options the executive branch review discovers, or whatever the judicial branch comes up with, you are right
https://businessofcannabis.com/2022/09/16/us-court-of-appeal...
Instead, they just throw treats to their base when they're in trouble. Treats that are written on water. If I hear another thing about the Dreamers.
People keep saying that he can't do anything because he's not a dictator. He can't do anything because he doesn't believe in it, and even if he did doesn't have any ideological standards for his Congressional party that would ever get him majority support for anything that doesn't have lobbying checks behind it.
And how, exactly, do you propose he do that, given the current political landscape in the US?
Congress is gridlocked. Incumbents almost never lose their seats. The people who care enough to vote and support the issues are already voting as hard as they can.
This announcement? This is him doing what he can, both in terms of his legal ability to change things, as the chief executive, and in terms of using the bully pulpit, making clear where his and his administrations' priorities lie.
Basically, it sounds like you're saying "if the President can't force the legislation he wants to materialize and get through a Congress that is historically dysfunctional, that means he doesn't really care about the issue."
This can always be an excuse. Things can't be done because they can't be done. The fact is that he's giving speeches about how much he hates China and Russia, and not about legalizing pot.
He's also one of the engineers of the shitty situation that we're in, he's had an abusively and militantly anti-drug pol his entire career, so I'm not ever going to be convinced by this woe is me lark. He's not doing his best, he's being pushed (if he's even being adequately informed.) The best case scenario is that some people in his administration think that drug law reform is important, either morally or politically. There is no scenario in which the actual Biden is sympathetic towards drug users, or regretful of the lives that he personally contributed to ruining over drugs.
> how, exactly, do you propose he do that
The answer is do politics. If he doesn't know how to do politics, it would be better if someone else were doing the job.
Ok sure, not only that, but he is the president who has the least number of spare brain cells to devote to an issue that he opposes on principle.
And yet of all the presidents we've had in the past 4 decades, it wasn't the B-movie star, nor the frat boy, not the draft dodger(s), nor the iconoclast reality TV star, nor even our first and only Black president -- but Biden the Old Catholic who actually got this seemingly simple reform with simple possession of pot.
As you said, he's the guy with the least reason and capacity to get it done, and yet here we are. How are you managing to complain that what he did was so simple and miniscule, and yet no one else came close to doing it?
> The best case scenario is that some people in his administration think that drug law reform is important, either morally or politically. There is no scenario in which the actual Biden is sympathetic towards drug users, or regretful of the lives that he personally contributed to ruining over drugs.
I wouldn't be too sure that Biden had staff more devoted toward drug reform than Obama [0]. But I guess you're stuck with that position since you can't fathom that Biden personally pushed for reform. So how did Biden end up with this successful drug reform team, just random chance? If Biden is so stridently anti-drug, so absolutely useless toward pushing reform as you think he must be, then how did that not trickle down to his senior staff and who they hired and what the prioritized?
> The answer is do politics. If he doesn't know how to do politics, it would be better if someone else were doing the job.
Politics is all about building consensus through compromise and collaboration. Biden may hate marijuana reform, but he prioritized and executed in a way that past presidents didn't, ostensibly because he knew it was something that lots of people love. How is that not great politics?
[0] https://www.marijuanamoment.net/new-book-obama-considered-de...
If this is true, then this is politics working as intended.
Seriously, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work: The officials we elect do what we, the people, want, not just push their personal beliefs at all costs.
I would 1000% rather elect someone I agree with on 50% of issues, who is willing to be swayed by popular opinion, than someone I agree with on 80% of issues, who is going to try to enforce their personal beliefs as law no matter what the people actually want.
As for Biden "knowing how to do politics", you might want to spend some time studying Biden's astonishing legislative results over the past few months. He's apparently quite good at politics.
Just be honest: you have 937 axes to grind and you are desperate to avoid giving Biden any credit, ever, for anything.
That’s exactly what he just did with the pardons. He’s signaling to voters that he wants to legalize it and needs the right partners in Congress to make it happen. From your other comments I don’t get the impression you’re open to discussing the implications so much as you just want to complain about Biden.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin...
You also really need to do some homework on the US House and the degree to which gerrymandering has made it completely impossible for your dreams of "appeals to voters" to work.
He is also directing the AG and Secretary of HHS is reexamine the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act which is the process in law which is needed to change the legal regime applicable to it without Congressional action.
He’s not a dictator who can rewrite law at a whim.
From the press release[1]:
Make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers by:
This perhaps by far the bigger set of changes because it ensures the terms of remaining and future loans remain serviceable and proportionate to the actual earning potential of the recipient, which is half the problem with the system (at least if you simply must run it this way).[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
With regard to Marijuana and the controlled substances act, Biden could issue an executive order to change the schedule of any substance right away. He could also issue an EO for the DOJ/IRS to change any regulations regarding marijuana that impact legal states or MJ related prosecutions.
He has a lot more power than this action implies, especially regarding things that aren't made law via statue but regulations set by executive branch departments.
This absolutely does not apply to any state.
It means practically nothing and we must demand more than symbolism.
I'm still cynical, but slightly more optimistic today.
B) World War II started two years earlier than Pearl Harbor, when Hitler invaded Poland. The idea that FDR started WWII is the most ludicrous, revisionist idea I've ever heard about history.
2. My point is it's not really a "world" war without the US. Would've probably called it something else.
2. Adding a continent to a war is not the same as starting it. That's like saying that if the US entered the war in Ukraine, then Biden started WWIII.
The person who started the war is the person who invaded a sovereign neighbor to expand his empire.
The Chinese might disagree.
You're good!
(Neither party has a monopoly on this BS.)
Presumably if you're caught with weed in DC then it's federal. But under what circumstances could you be found in possession with marijuana anywhere else and have it be a matter for the federal government, not the state one?
Do you have a link about this? Because he's shown hostility towards marijuana legalization, promised to veto it if it was sent to him, and in the past supported draconian drug laws.
Point 3.
Show me a policy document along with a bill from that office and I'll consider it more than an election year symbolic gesture.
0: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...
It's reasonable to be cautious about a politician making a promise in anything but the most legally-binding possible way. It's not reasonable to straight-out call that politician a bald-faced liar if he hasn't demonstrated a propensity for such lies (unlike some I could easily name).
Obviously we can only wait to see what comes next, but I'm not sure what more you'd want? The review process has to occur, so there's no additional "policy" to be had at the moment. Obviously there's a possibility that rescheduling doesn't happen as a result of that review, but that hardly seems likely given the current political and social climate around marijuana.
Seemed like a pretty straight-forward way to communicate "and this is step 2, which is a work in progress".
(White House and executive offices don't produce "bills", other than signing the ones proposed and passed through Congress)
Edit: of course that’s temporary.
Now the president can pardon people for this before every election!
6000+ people were.
I wish you were correct. But there's a difference between doing something because you know it's right (implore congress to pass legislation on marijuana immediately) and because you need the votes. Only one of them is virtuous even though both ostensibly benefit the people.
Consider also that these federal marijuana convicts were charged due to such simple infractions as carrying weed onto federal property such as national parks (given their greater popularity in recent times).
This shouldn't be too controversial.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/joe-biden-marijuana-...
In the past Presidents and Governors pardoned people on their last days in office - when they’re least accountable to electors.
Now they (one anyway) is doing it right before and election.
That’s really big.
Or is the “cesspool” you are describing no longer just consist of people who disagree with you, but has now become people who could disagree with you in the future?
The only things above the fold on the article I see (in a full screen browser winder), are the title, a giant headline that "Study links high-THC marijuana to mental health issues" in a video player, and the same headline immediately below the video player.
Scrolling down the next thing I see is two paragraphs of un-emphasized and dry text describing the announcement, followed by "DEMOCRATIC SENATORS HIT BIDEN FOR 'EXTRAORDINARILY DISAPPOINTING' STANCE ON MARIJUANA" in all caps, highlighted, and underlined (as a link).
After that we have a picture of Biden, and four more paragraphs of text (as above). We round off with a video with the headline ""RAINBOW FENTANYL" WARNINGS OF AHEAD OF HALLOWEEN".
Edit: And finally the main body of the article closes with advertisement for their app, saying this is similar to steps taken by new york, and acknowledging AP. Just to be complete.
I think the context which fox puts this announcement in... really speaks for itself.
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.
https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488
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.
There absolutely has been though.
California: https://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/dismissal-and-re-sente...
Washington: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/washington-gov-i...
Colorado: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/6986-governor-polis-g...
etc. etc.
These are things that have happened decades after legalization!
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.
Borders?
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won....
If so, that’s a whole lot more than 149 people.
In 2017, there were 650 000 marijuana arrests across the states, up from the year before.
https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state
nothing whatsoever, other than you know, shuffling https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html
>Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...)
It‘a simple leadership.
The list of cannabis offenders imprisoned federally is 40k people. Biden pardoned 6.5k most of whom are not currently serving time.
I'm not in the US and I am aware of the Fed/States law/divide but that's not the most important issue for those of us outside the US.
The truly significantly point about Biden's announcement is that the attitude to marijuana use will almost certainly change worldwide. I don't expect the world to go pot-crazy overnight or such, but as I see it it's a very noticeable (albeit small) crack in the way drug use is policed and this will be echoed to varying degrees worldwide.
The fact that the US president has done this is an indicator to the world that the all-or-nothing/black and white approach to policing drug use is not the correct approach and that it ought to be more nuanced and targeted. And, in my opinion, that's to be welcomed.
It goes without saying there are major problems with drug use and I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach to their use—far from it. However, what Biden's announcement shows the world that not all drugs have equally bad outcomes for users and that this should be reflected generally by grading drug laws more appropriately.
With Biden's words, hopefully drug use will become less of a criminal activity and more of a medical one.
FYI, I'm not a marijuana user—well anyway not a recent one, haven't used it since my student days quite some decades ago.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/biden-to-pardon-all-prior-fe...
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113698 for discussion about next steps delineated by the government.
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.
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.
Wow. Let's say a person within that pool ONLY had a felony for marijuana possession. This pardon restores their voting rights.
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won....
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/marijuana-decriminal...
0 is the government’s current count of people who are in federal prison now solely on a federal simple possession charge.
149 is, per the source cited upthread, the number for Fiscal Year 2021 (not clear from the B.I. article if it is at some point in the fiscal year are total in prison at any point over the fiscal year), and the source indicates that’s been rapidly declining; also, Biden issued 75 commutations and 3 pardons in April this year for nonviolent drug offenses, which may be part of the reason that the number of prisoners on simple marijuana possession charges alone in federal prison now is 0.
Wait a second... How would guns have changed things? Would it have been legal for them to shoot at your friend in this scenario?
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.
Or anywhere in Washington D.C.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHORNMWPmg
Not sure why I thought that 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...
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.
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).
As an example, if you were - for example - a tech billionaire who is on the record as describing the 19th amendment as the end of freedom in the United States, and you wanted to make it impossible for as many women to vote as possible without actually fronting a repeal of that amendment, you could relentlessly support and fund efforts to make common healthcare procedures for women a felony.
Letting people out of prison is not a simple undo function there are dangerous side effects as experienced in California
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"
I love this reasoning. If there are no non-violent offenders, then every crime is violence. Considering people break laws on accident all the time, it is probably safest to simply imprison the entire population of California by default and have a tribunal of police that decide parole on a case-by-case basis.
If non-violent crime is indeed rare, would you be eligible for parole in my thought experiment where everybody starts off incarcerated? How could I trust that you wouldn’t violently jaywalk or violently forget the contents of your trunk and bring an apple across state lines?
Serious question: Do you work in or for law enforcement? The only people I’ve ever spoken to that maintain “people that smoke weed are indistinguishable from rapists and murderers” are people whose income in some way relies on holding that opinion.
I’m just a civilian victim of crimes who knows that releasing criminals causes crime.
If you want to see proof, look at crime rates in CA cities, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans . Those cities have been letting prisoners out letting suspects out with no bail.
Almost all crime is committed by a small percentage of people. You don’t have to let many criminals out for big increases in crime.
You’re concerned about the criminals and I’m concerned about the victims.
Your point is that people in jail for weed are probably violent? Based on what?
I’ll repeat my earlier question:
> Serious question: Do you work in or for law enforcement? The only people I’ve ever spoken to that maintain “people that smoke weed are indistinguishable from rapists and murderers” are people whose income in some way relies on holding that opinion.
Also I’ll add my second question: Since there are only two groups of people, “violent criminals” (since all criminals must be assumed to be violent) and “victims”, what group does someone that’s wrongfully imprisoned fall into? Who exactly do I care about then? Criminal or victim of a shitty criminal system?
Also, would you get parole in the world of “guilty of violent crime until proven innocent” world? I’m fascinated about your willingness to make theoretical statements paired with your allergy to answering theoretical (and while we’re at it, basic factual) questions.
Millions of people can now truthfully say that they've been granted a presidential pardon.
One need not have been charged to receive a pardon.
https://courtmartiallaw.com/military-law/if-you-accept-a-par...
This seems to be saying the exact opposite.
You're missing the joke!
> 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?
> Don't fuckin' come here and ignore the rules
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.
>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?
So even if they were a lawful permanent resident at the time of their offense, if they aren't anymore at this time (and getting convicted is probably enough to have their visa's revoked), no, it doesn't apply to them. @kragen pointed this out in another comment.
Let alone someone who was never a lawful permanent resident, nope, not pardoned.
The first sentance of the order says it only applies to current citizens or permanent residents. I guess if you were a visa holder at time of offense and had somehow become a citizen or lawful permanent resident since then (which would be hard to do with such an offense), it would apply to you...
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?
IANAL
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.
If they suspect that you’re using it as a stand-in for a protected class, you may be in trouble (not hiring smokers because blacks smoke, for example).
There may be edge cases where something is effectively a protected class. And it may vary from state to state.
https://www.workplacefairness.org/off-duty-conduct
[1] https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/08/29....
at-will means at-will.
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.
Do you mean that literally? Whether they're productive or not, it's in the publics interest to know if their representatives are doing cocaine or other drugs. I think that's completely relevant, it affects the thought processes of most regular cocaine users I've known.
My meta-tinfoil hat theory is that stories of his depravity have been intentionally shared by dem insiders to conservative channels to mitigate the national security risk of someone extorting Joe - can't blackmail if the info is already public.
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.
The closest I'm aware of is having US citizens overseas be put on the no-fly list, which in practice amounts to the same thing if they can't get to Canada/Mexico either. But hey, they won't be denied entry if they swim across!
Few more minutes pass and he goes, "You know, you're lucky I let you through with this stuff now. In a few months I won't be able to and your butt would be hanging out in Canada tonight. Have a nice day."
I'm not a US citizen, and I've been to the US a few times. The security measures are about the same level as Japan. The "worst" thing that happened to me lately on an airport was an officer talked to me in a friendly tone but took my passport for inspection and returned it to me about 15 minutes later.
The only thing that can remotely be described as "brutal" is when I entered the US via land (from Canada) the first time around 2008 if I remember correctly. They searched out stuff thoroughly and we had to wait about an hour or so. But they were very polite and professional about it. No "threats" or intimidation of any kind.
I normally get my bags searched at the public "nothing to declare" area entering Japan and Thailand tho at the customs check point, and sometimes leaving.
No questions or searches ever in Malaysia.
No questions or searches ever entering Hong Kong. If you're e-gate enrolled it's not even an officer at the passport checkpoint, you just scan it and go through a double sided gate. If you have a HKID you don't even need to use your passport for entry, you can scan the ID for entry from international which I think is cool.
No questions or searches ever at Turkey.
Flying into Europe they normally have more questions at passport but no searches.
I'm always honest in my ESTA applications tho, maybe that makes difference.
That's fascinating. I really want to "Google stalk" you now to figure out what this could be about.
I have no idea but my hunch is maybe you're connected to someone... Social or family... Who is somehow important to them...but you don't know.
The slightest of non conforming information or a honest paperwork mistake in your application can be used to permanently reject a visa,
Even if you been living for many many years , you have to leave in very short time (10-60? Days) if your visa is revoked/expired because you lost your job and potentially upend/split your family some of whom would be citizens if they were born here
Or be deported out by ICE right after serving lengthy sentence despite living in the country your whole life , to a home country you don’t know and never even been.
Despite all the bad press and difficulties US has a better system than most other countries, however if you are unlucky US immigration can upend your life.
Definitely not a US only thing. Though does appear to be a New world thing.
You're talking about people who were dragged into the US when they were children by their parents.
We were just talking about whether the US is particularly stringent when it comes to border inspections.
> Or be deported out by ICE right after serving lengthy sentence despite living in the country your whole life
Most countries would consider foreign citizens who serve lengthy prison sentences as unwanted visitors and would like very much to get rid of them as soon as possible.
I don't know of a country that welcomes such a thing. Do you know of one?
I'm not sure if Vanuatu allows immigration for people who served time in Vanuatu but my understanding is they commonly "forget" to thoroughly check records when people pay the $130k or whatever it is for their passport-by-investment; Comoros was doing the same thing before they shut down their CIP program.
Nobody is saying the fact we have incarceration rate is a different “topic “, we will not reform immigration policy to mitigate that.
These are real problems for real people , it doesn’t matter it is different topic, As a country we fail immigrants who come here
Last time I entered I was (all without being arrested or charged with a crime)
-- forced to strip, cavity searched
-- searched by a dog, who found nothing, and agents lamented nothing was found, but they later wrote in their report that the dog alerted.
-- tossed in a cell
-- fingerprinted / booked (without being arrested/charged). US citizens entering with passport are not supposed to be fingerprinted.
-- detained for 16 hours
-- Had officials drag me in cuffs to two different hospitals 60 miles apart by prisoner transport van. Taken to second hospital after the first doctor wasn't corrupt enough to go along with their insane claims.
-- Had officials lie to doctors suggesting there were drugs up my ass, then being personally billed for medical services I never consented to. I am still in debt for these medical services I refused and were forced on me in custody.
-- After being seen without my consent, without an official arrest, or even a court order, was served ex-post-facto a warrant signed by the judge AFTER the time a which I was searched/"cared for."
-- forced to perform intimate body functions in full view (like 2 feet in front of me) of agents, who then searched the effects
-- Prevented from sleeping, even when doing so presents no interference or risk to anyone.
-- Dumped at the border with no apology
Here's a comment sharing some of the details last time I went through the border:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32416424#32421655
Here's a segment of my warrant based on perjurious testimony of DHS officials:
https://i.imgur.com/ZFPgRFl.png
(and their perjurious testimony WARNING/NSFW explicit text) : https://i.imgur.com/RXNrYmv.png
Doctors noting literally nothing interesting and that I'm asymptomatic of any problems and "stable for jail":
https://i.imgur.com/h6XHm5m.png
And a women sent to the same hospital as me, who was forcefully penetrated in her private orifices at the direction of DHS in circumstances similar to mine:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
These detentions are a regular occurrence for me. I'm a US citizen, clean criminal record, never committed a US border related offense. Yes they have also threatened to deny me entry to US and also threatened to revoke my passport as part of their intimidation.
> I got thrown on something like this almost a decade ago when I fought alongside the YPG, a US backed Kurdish militia that fought against literal ISIS. DHS/CBP put me on some fucked up list and now everytime I re-enter the US I get detained, accused of crimes, tossed in holding cell.
So, you're in some kind of a black/gray list possibly caused by involvement in a military conflict. Granted, it sounds absurd they would do this given you were on the US-backed side of the conflict, but still. Your experience is not representative of anything remotely close to what most people go through.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
I recommend in particular noted pgs 7-9 under the heading "Ashley’s [redacted] Were Probed without a Warrant, Consent or Any Suspicion of Internal Drug Smuggling"
US does seem one of the only/few countries where an illegal immigrant can lead a pretty normal life for years (job, send kids to school, get a doctor, etc.) without getting noticed and deported... in my country for example, there's literally no way to get someone illegal to (eg.) school.
I read some bizarre reports on baexpats that the easiest way to get deported is actually to follow the official legal residency pathway!
Oh wow, I hadn't caught that. I thought you were mistaken but went back and looked at it again, I think you are correct. That's even more evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_South_Korea#Kor...