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

221–230 of 351 posts

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

#221

Post by mikeyouse »

sparrish wrote: post #29

This only applies to federal "possession or use", which nearly never happens. Those convicted of "possession or use" are nearly 100% plea down cases when the actual offense was sales, distribution, or manufacturing.

> Those convicted of "possession or use" are nearly 100% plea down cases when the actual offense was sales, distribution, or manufacturing.

Not true at all - guess what charge you catch if you are caught smoking on a chairlift at a ski resort on Federal land or if you're on a hike in a National park.

Thousands of people every year;

https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/09/16/marijuana-busts-on-fe...

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

#222

Post by minerva23 »

mcfedr wrote: post #177
minerva23 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to look at this pardon as a quick, easy, and obvious way he can use his limited power to improve people's lives. Getting the DEA to reschedule it would involve more time and more influence than direct power. That said, I think he should do both, AND that issuing this pardon may double as a good way of influencing the DEA.

Does he control the federal agency? He would appoint the leadership

I don't know about the power of appointment there and it's limitations. Regardless, that's still an influence move. It's either trying to influence the existing people in power via threat of unemployment, or influencing potential replacements with a promise of employment.

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

#223

Post by torstenvl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #218
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 sin…

Fine. I don't understand why he's singling out military veterans with military convictions not to receive this pardon. It's significant disparate treatment in a way that precludes a significant benefit from going to a group of people of whom 100% have served this country.

EDIT: And no, Parker v. Levy is not a valid justification for this, as the conduct was equally criminalized in both the military and the civilian world. Furthermore, Parker v. Levy and related cases are only relevant on what is lawful to make different in the military justice system, not what is good policy. Nobody is saying the President cannot exercise the pardon power in a way that discriminates against military members; the pardon power is plenary. I am saying he shouldn't.

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

#224

Post by Levitz »

0ct4via wrote: post #199
dheuoddjo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the thing you said about priors is repeating a talking point about prosecution or sentencing disparities that isn't particularly relevant in the context of an arrest. Arrests don’t occur in a vacuum. The prior convictions are known and are a factor. > I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges. Person A is smoking pot and is arrested. Person B is smoking pot wearing a bloody t shirt with a knife in…

Yes, and if person A and B are white American and African American, the AA smoker is much more likely to be actually arrested, rather than given a warning, etc. at the officer's discretion. Dog whistles about unknowns like previous convictions or criminal history, and fictitious scenarios attempting to justify your point, don't actually help you the way you think they do. If you're ignorant enough to think there isn'…

None of what you say counters their point. At the end of the day African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it would be a miracle if they didn't have more prior convictions on average.

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

#225

Post by Levitz »

DANmode wrote: post #178
astrange wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part about "enriching the military industrial complex" is certainly a conspiracy theory though. The MIC has only ever shrunk in importance in the American economy, and giving people their used products is like the opposite of enriching them.

Normalizing the use of the equipment guarantees additional future domestic purchases, subscriptions, and other support revenue.

Does it really? Do people really think "Ah but of course the military needs more money, it's given a good use, since the police get it afterwards"?

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

#226

Post by 0ct4via »

Levitz wrote: post #224
0ct4via wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and if person A and B are white American and African American, the AA smoker is much more likely to be actually arrested, rather than given a warning, etc. at the officer's discretion. Dog whistles about unknowns like previous convictions or criminal history, and fictitious scenarios attempting to justify your point, don't actually help you the way you think they do. If you're ignorant enough to think there isn'…

None of what you say counters their point. At the end of the day African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it would be a miracle if they didn't have more prior convictions on average.

They're trying to denounce the racial aspect of likelihood of being targeted/prosecuted, by going "African Americans are more likely to be involved in crime already" - which is also inherent on racial biases and profiling in the police and criminal justice systems.

The point is that they can't jump to racist dog-whistles and then pretend like race isn't a factor in targeting to begin with.

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

#227

Post by sakopov »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #83

For reference, as of January 2022 there were ZERO people in federal custody solely for simple possession of marijuana[0]. As a gesture, this seems fine. But the continued presence of cannabis on Schedule I makes an absolute mockery out of our entire code of laws. [0]: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...

> Just over 300 people — or 0.5% of the total prison population — are behind bars for any sort of drug possession. [1]

If anything it'll help some folks to have a their records cleaned up.

[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won...

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

#228

Post by zdragnar »

ethanbond wrote: post #216
zdragnar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I said, I don't mind the pardon for those already affected... the problem is it doesn't do anything for someone who is charged tomorrow.

Rescheduling buys more time, and unlike other executive orders, is actually in line with the intent of Congress via the controlled substances act.

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

#229

Post by arrowleaf »

loeg wrote: post #171
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,…

Re: alcohol, there are people with Minor in Possession charges on their records. It would be good to expunge those, too.

I've always taken it for granted that stuff like MIPs on your record get sealed or expunged once you hit 21. IMO it's silly to have it be a mark on your record even temporarily, but insane to me that some states don't automatically expunge misdemeanors for kids.

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

#230

Post by hx8 »

torstenvl wrote: post #210
qingcharles wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I think this rule applies inside federal buildings on state land too?

It depends on the statutory scheme for the acquisition of the federal land. In some cases the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, in some cases concurrent, and in some it only has a proprietary interest (i.e., the federal government is the landowner but the state has legal jurisdiction).

I'm curious if there are standard rules for post offices.
Post reply on HN