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

131–140 of 351 posts

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

#131

Post by TheCleric »

aaomidi wrote: post #20
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.

And the 13th amendment, kinda. It goes against the spirit of it but not the word of it.

The unfortunate part of the 13th amendment was the addendum that slavery wasn't slavery if it was part of the prison system. Which had the effect that those who wanted to continue the slavery system figured out "Oh, we'll just criminalize being black, and then we're legal again!"

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

#132

Post by alanbernstein »

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]

It's impossible for the general public to understand any actual risks associated with marijuana while they still believe in the reefer madness nonsense from almost a century ago.

I'm sorry for your loss. Your comment reads like you disapprove of this pardon, which would seem quite short-sighted.

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

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

aaomidi wrote: post #31
codexb wrote: post #7

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

The president can however pardon in states using “emergency powers”. Our constitution does not define the breadth and depth of emergency powers and it would be up for both congress and SCOTUS to decide that the president can’t do that. I would hope that a president would just say fuck it and try this though. As much as I want things to be done “the right way”, I value lives of folks more than my neurodivergent desire…

> The president can however pardon in states using “emergency powers”.

No, he can't.

> Our constitution does not define the breadth and depth of emergency powers

In our system, federal powers not defined in the Constitution do not exist.

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

#134

Post by vvvvvvvvvvvv »

justrealist wrote: post #79
riffic wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it used to happen a lot, and this also applies to the district of columbia.

Essentially none of those people are still in prison.

they might be on probation tho

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

#135

Post by shermantanktop »

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]

Sorry to hear that. Beyond loss of life, what I’ve seen is an incremental loss of human potential.

Weed smokers tend to lose motivation at larger life goals. Short-term memory issues affect their ability to get to work on time, pay bills, take care of their health, etc.

Yes, there are some who avoid these impacts; yes, alcohol is also bad. But there are a bunch of 40yo wake-and-bakers out there who don’t realize they got caught in a trap. Their life, not mine, but it’s sad.

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

#136

Post by theptip »

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…

No. Criminalization does more harm than benefit.

For the vast majority of drug users that are not addicted, this is obvious.

And for the addicts, criminalization is the last thing they need. Deterrence might prevent a few people from getting addicted, but not many. A lot of drug addiction is downstream of homelessness and mental health issues meaning the illegality is a very weak deterrent for the most vulnerable.

If we pushed even half of the money spent policing the war on drugs into homelessness support, mental health services, and addiction counseling and harm minimization like needle exchanges, we’d see a huge reduction in harm.

The current regime is not really interested in harm reduction; there is no effort to compare interventions based on objective harm metrics. Instead non-harm metrics like arrest rates and usage are chased. The policies start from Puritanism and historical racism and justify themselves claiming to care about harm after the fact.

To your second point… I think the racial discrimination baked into the history of drug enforcement should steer us away from giving police more excuses to incarcerate on their discretion. But even ignoring that, I don’t think we should support “we knew but could not provide evidence to prove guilt”, the justice system requires evidence for a reason.

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

#137

Post by ecommerceguy »

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…

Nixon was certainly an enigma compared to other US Presidents: Advocated for "Universal Healthcare" by basically mandating the Federal government to provide stop loss reinsurance to employers and creating a marketplace for poor people with income adjusted premiums... sounds familiar.

Created the EPA

Warmonger but hated by the CIA/FBI

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

#138

Post by dheuoddjo »

dessimus wrote: post #116
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.

It's pretty clear what certain people wanted in response to the 70s stemming from the rise of minority groups like the Black Panthers or the American Indian Movement trying to use their newly-enacted rights to fight oppression. Even the NRA was pro gun control when the Black Panthers were using the 2A for open-carrying to protect black Americans. If it was truly about marijuana use, then when usage rates for white an…

> black people would not be 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people

While on its face true, this isn’t taking into account things like recidivism or multiple charges.

That’s to say the average black person has more priors and is more likely to have multiple charges when charged compared to the average white.

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

#139

Post by more_corn »

unstatusthequo wrote: post #40
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,…

Well, not all states have drugs laws that are absurd. At least one decent thing about California, Oregon, and Washington is some sensibility about legalizing or at least not prosecuting non-dangerous drugs. But, sad to say the ultra religious/conservative states are still stuck in legacy reasoning and it will take generations to change minds. And yes, alcohol is much worse than marijuana, shrooms, LSD.

Decriminalizing drugs and other progressive changes to law enforcement have led to some problems in San Francisco and Portland. There’s a real sense of the breakdown of social order.

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

#140

Post by theptip »

zdragnar wrote: post #6

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

It’s true, but every step towards eventual (and IMO inevitable) legalization should be celebrated.
Post reply on HN