Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 351 posts

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

#91

Post by danielbln »

fsckboy wrote: post #84
kstrauser wrote: post #3

I don't use cannabis. If it were to go away tomorrow, my life wouldn't change one bit. I am absolutely thrilled with this blanket pardon. Rephrasing the statement slightly, like: > I am pardoning additional individuals who may continue to experience the unnecessary collateral consequences of a conviction for simple possession of beer, attempted simple possession of beer, or use of beer. and it sounds utterly obvious,…

[flagged]

Yes, drugs come with risks. You know what else triggers latent psychosis? Alcohol. Prohibition is not the answer to this problem, education, harm reduction, the freedom to seek information and help without prosecution, is.

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

#92

Post by 127361 »

bluish29 wrote: post #87
127361 wrote: post #66

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

> Not private individuals consuming it in their own homes, and causing absolutely no harm to anyone Considering that there is -at least- a correlation between substance abuse and domestic abuse [1,2]. I wouldn't be so sure to say "absolutely no harm" in this case. [1] https://www.gov1.com/public-health/articles/the-link-between... [2] https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/59/5/1035/5486457

I meant individuals living on their own in that case. By all means increase the penalties for the abuse if it's proven to be fueled by drugs.

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

#94

Post by 4RealFreedom »

cm2187 wrote: post #70
tessierashpool wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. The War on Drugs was always in contradiction of the spirit of the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition. It needs to be formally acknowledged as such, and further as fundamentally unconstitutional, but these kinds of victories take time. At least that so-called "War" is destroying fewer lives now.

[flagged]

Why does fentanyl kill? Because people buy it and don't understand the strength. Regulation would take care of that. So what's your argument here?

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

#96

Post by coeneedell »

bongodongobob wrote: post #88
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You act as if they couldn't have gone about this 10,000 different ways. This worked because it's what the people wanted - in response to the 70s - not because some evil scheming overlord.

No, it's fact, not conspiracy theory. "You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, an…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#Drug_war_quote

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

#97

Post by theptip »

cm2187 wrote: post #70
tessierashpool wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. The War on Drugs was always in contradiction of the spirit of the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition. It needs to be formally acknowledged as such, and further as fundamentally unconstitutional, but these kinds of victories take time. At least that so-called "War" is destroying fewer lives now.

[flagged]

I’ll bite that bullet.

Legalize heroin, and nobody would want to take the more-dangerous fentanyl?

But sure, legalize fentanyl and nobody would accidentally overdose.

Legalize and standardize all drugs and nobody would die from fentanyl contaminating their cocaine.

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

#98

Post by drevil-v2 »

At university two of my friends went down a dark road with Marijuana use. One destroyed his very bright future - went from a top student to a dropout. The other one had severe mental psychosis episodes, the last one being where he physically threatened other students with a knife and was arrested and subsequently medically repatriated back to his home country - his parents were financially ruined by the cost of getting him home.

I am not sure that this is as black and white as some people make it out to be. Complete freedom to do whatever one pleases is not Utopia. There is a limit if one wants a functioning society that is on the whole safe and high trust.

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

#99

Post by feoren »

pengaru wrote: post #49

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

Nobody should ever fix anything unless they can fix everything!

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

#100

Post by 127361 »

gchamonlive wrote: post #82
maerF0x0 wrote: post #58

One moral risk we play is does legalizing our recreational drug (eg alcohol/cannibis) increase the harm done to addicts[0]? While I maintain that there's a logical inconsistency to having legal alcohol and illegal cannabis, I'm on the fence if the consistency should be that both are somehow controlled/illegal (though absolutely not criminal). Another thought on the subject is how many small charges were simply becaus…

What about sugar? Processed meat and fat? Carcinogenics in general? What is the extent of the control we are willing to relinquish to the government in order to control substance abuse? And how about shifting the discussion from prohibition and control of use to the democatization of healthcare access for people to heal from addiction, if we are so interested in the welfare of addicts at this point?

The arguments we made for drug prohibition started spreading to other areas of society. So the prohibitionist mindset was expanding, with potentially disastrous consequences for innocent people caught up in it.
Post reply on HN