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

211–220 of 351 posts

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

#211

Post by dragonwriter »

jimt1234 wrote: post #141
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.

Wait. The DEA sets the "scheduling" of drugs? I always thought it was Congress and/or the White House.

Congress set the initial scheduling of some drugs, and set a process for updating the schedules within the executive branch going forward, with the DEA (in statute, the Attorney-General, but in practice within Justice its the DEA doing the main work) playing the key role (HHS in statute -- via the FDA in practice-- plays a mandatory role in advance of the decision, which is controlling in the case of a currently non-controlled drug that HHS recommends not controlling, but advisory in, I believe, all other cases.)

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

#212

Post by torstenvl »

sigzero wrote: post #169
Digory wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the proclamation says, the District of Columbia's local laws are technically federal laws. So it wipes out the convictions of a good number of people in one of our major cities. I can't quite tell if this applies to military convictions. That would be the other area where the Federal government takes the time to prosecute something as minor as mere possession or use. Another interesting question: does this actuall…

> I can't quite tell if this applies to military convictions. No, because it would still violate the UCMJ. The UCMJ would have to change.

No. The President has the power to pardon violations of the UCMJ. There is no statutory change that would have to be made.

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

#213

Post by claytongulick »

mcfedr wrote: post #180
kredd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the House ever pass it as it would give a huge win to one side? A bit unaware in terms of US politics, but up here since legalization, life is exactly as it was before — people who smoked just continue to smoke but legally, people who don’t… don’t.

The house is incapable of passing the most basic of funding for national security to let Ukraine win the war, let alone something even slightly controversial

Unpacking your statement it seems like you believe two things:

1. That Ukraine winning against Russia is part of United States national security.

2. That the United States providing funding to Ukraine would enable them to win against Russia.

Is that correct?

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

#214

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

And if this was merely a commutation, that would matter more. But pardons don't just end sentences, they remove all lasting legal impacts of the conviction.

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

#215

Post by kstrauser »

jgalt212 wrote: post #158
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,…

> that's caused far more societal harm than cannabis ever did. Yes, I think this indisputably so. However, the more widely cannabis is used the greater the harms seem to be.

In absolute numbers, the harm from weed is increasing as more people use it. As a rate, it’s a rounding error compared to alcohol.

For instance[1]:

“According to the 2022 Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 29.5 million people ages 12 and older (10.5% in this age group) had AUD in the past year.”

Compare that to[2]:

“The incidence rate of cannabis-induced psychosis increased steadily from 2.8 per 100 000 person years in 2006 to 6.1 per 100 000 person years in 2016.”

You’re orders of magnitude more likely to suffer harm from using alcohol than cannabis. I’m saying that as someone who enjoys the occasional drink but doesn’t use weed; I don’t have skin in the game.

[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-to...

[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31839011/

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

#216

Post by ethanbond »

zdragnar wrote: post #188
ethanbond wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it “for optics” is downplaying the severity of the situation. The reason presidents rely so much on executive fiat is because our actual legislative system has paralyzed itself with partisan politics, gerrymandering, and the filibuster. Obviously it’s intentional that it’s hard to pass things, and legitimately controversial things should be difficult to pass (and shouldn’t happen by executive fiat), but there…

The problem with blaming Congress is that the harms could be easily mitigated by the DEA changing the scheduling, which was my point. Rumor has it that is in the works, but the fact that it has taken so long starts and ends with the executive office. That said, Congress decriminalizing it entirely is definitely something that is going to take too long, and will also be entirely the fault of Congress.

DEA rescheduling would be the "executive fiat" and is more undo-able than pardons.

The DEA is entirely under the control of the executive. So if you want a more permanent solution, the only one is legislative, and that is extremely unlikely to happen even if there were extremely broad public support.

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

#217

Post by calvinmorrison »

dragonwriter wrote: post #211
jimt1234 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. The DEA sets the "scheduling" of drugs? I always thought it was Congress and/or the White House.

Congress set the initial scheduling of some drugs, and set a process for updating the schedules within the executive branch going forward, with the DEA (in statute, the Attorney-General, but in practice within Justice its the DEA doing the main work) playing the key role (HHS in statute -- via the FDA in practice-- plays a mandatory role in advance of the decision, which is controlling in the case of a currently non-…

If the ATF can announce rescheduling of a constitutionally protected right based on random features, surely the DEA can do so as well

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

#218

Post by dragonwriter »

torstenvl wrote: post #189

I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon. It's very frustrating. Violations under Article 112a, UCMJ, solely for use of marijuana, should also be included.

> I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans not to receive this pardon.

Nothing in the text of the pardon does that is "singling out" veterans.

It doesn't pardon UCMJ violations, but it absolutely includes military veterans with federal civilian convictions (unless they were in unsatisfactory immigration status at the time of the offense.)

Not including military offenses is a different thing than singling out veterans.

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

#219

Post by hermannj314 »

theptip wrote: post #140
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.

I don't support a train barreling toward derailment just because I prefer the view from a moving train.

If there is a single negative consequence from this pardon, some sort of Willy Horton moment for Biden, it will definitely derail the path to decriminalization and strengthen the resolve of the opposition.

I support pardons for miscarriages of the procedures of justice, not for freeing incarcerated people for actions that are still considered crimes. I guess "hooray, our team won today" is what I am supposed to be saying; time will show us the good or bad of having chosen the shortcut.

Post reply on HN