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

281–290 of 351 posts

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

#281

Post by smegger001 »

ensignavenger wrote: post #278
xenophonf wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Biden administration—HHS, specifically—has recommended rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. > "If the recommendation is approved, marijuana would no longer be listed as a dangerous substance like heroin or LSD and it would reduce or potentially eliminate criminal penalties for possession. The decision rests with the DEA, which has rarely, if ever, rejected a reschedul…

The DEA is part of the "Biden Administration". One part of the administration- HHS, has made a recomendation to another part, the DEA.

Yeah I mean if Biden actually cared about it he could issue an executive order and have it rescheduled tomorrow whether the DEA wanted to or not. this is just a performative act. He is the chief executive ultimately its his decision to leave it as is of to reschedule it. if he doesn't then it means he doesn't care and anything less is just a performance for votes

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

#282

Post by hedora »

crtified wrote: post #247
sakopov wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I agree with your point. But the quoted statistic is confusing. Under what specifics would 300 people = 0.5% of the total prison population? As I understand it, the total prison population of the USA is over 1 million, and the subset designated 'federal prisoners' is, by itself, over 200,000.

That 0.5% figure is wrong. It’s closer to 20%. (350,000 people) Here is a write up of many prisoner stats from 2023. See slideshow 3:

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html

Note that terminology in this space is very important and subtle. 7 million people are arrested each year, and > 600K are sent to prison, but the total number of people in prison (and number that are incarcerated one way or another) is much lower than those numbers suggest. The total incarcerated population is about 1.75 million.

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

#283

Post by wonderwonder »

grecy wrote: post #236
wonderwonder wrote: post #61

Its macabre that I can walk into a nice clean store and get personalized service to buy something that thousands are sitting in prison for.

[flagged]

I hear what you are saying but I think the abortion issue is a little more complex than possession / use of cannabis.

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

#284

Post by CyberDildonics »

tptacek wrote: post #270
CyberDildonics wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming double arguendo, you were saying that prescription pain killer dangers are aequalis to street fentanyl and statistics show that is falsus.

I don't believe it much matters. The death stats on oxycodone are staggering. I'm sure the street drugs are much more dangerous dose-for-dose, but given free access to oxycodone, you're just as likely to die, perhaps on a marginally longer schedule (there are survivor high-functioning maintenance addicts on both natural and synthetic/street opioids, obviously). Remember as well that a great many street fentanyl death…

I don't believe it much matters.

The original claim was having a controlled dose matters, so it not only matters, that's the whole conversation here.

The death stats on oxycodone are staggering

You make these claims about stats but don't give stats.

but given free access to oxycodone

People don't have free access oxycodone

you're just as likely to die

This is not verum. "16 million individuals worldwide have had or currently suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448203/

Remember as well that a great many street fentanyl deaths were pts started on regulated, labeled opioids

Primis, this is an unbacked claim. Secundo, why didn't they die from prescription opiods?

The truth is fentanyl has a low safety index which makes the dose more important.

"The calculated safety index (ORantinociception/ORrespiratory depression) for fentanyl of 1.20 suggests that fentanyl has a low safety margin, implicating that fentanyl needs to be titrated with caution."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190336/

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

#285

Post by pyuser583 »

cheeze wrote: post #198
pyuser583 wrote: post #120

I live in an area where private consumption is de facto legal. A neighbor of mine would smoke weed constantly. A young woman would come to his apartment every month or so. He would open the door, invite her in, and she would refuse. They would talk at the door for about five minutes while marijuana smoke drifted into the hall. Then she’d leave. One day I asked she was his daughter, she said laughed and said, “No, I’m…

> Nobody wants their kids to share a park with potheads I see this as no different than alcohol or tobacco (which you also called out) Growing up and not having a place to smoke, we'd always go to a park. But we'd go deep into the woods, etc. last thing we wanted to do was inconvenience someone else, leading to us getting caught. Same is true of when we drank booze. No need to do it in front of a family.

I’m talking about parks I can’t take my family to because of how much drinking and pot smoking is going on - not kids smoking the middle of the forest.

The police give warnings, then only after a thousand warning give tickets.

But at the end of the day, these parks are not usable because of “partying.”

When I had kids I took pride in living in a lower income neighborhood. I didn’t want to be part of “white flight.”

But park problem went from being a nuisance to a big problem when COVID hit. Parks were one of the only places kids could go.

Now the kids are older I’m looking forward to leaving the soulless suburbs where all houses look the same.

But public drinking and drug use made the public spaces in lower income neighborhoods unusable.

Legalizing pot won’t help or hurt at all. But some people with convictions for possession deserve to have a light and temporary black mark on their record.

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

#286

Post by scoofy »

theptip wrote: post #136
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…

>No. Criminalization does more harm than benefit.

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

I'm pretty sure a couple decades of effectively legalized oxycodone and hydrocodone use shows this view is not correct.

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

#287

Post by tptacek »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #284
tptacek wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it much matters. The death stats on oxycodone are staggering. I'm sure the street drugs are much more dangerous dose-for-dose, but given free access to oxycodone, you're just as likely to die, perhaps on a marginally longer schedule (there are survivor high-functioning maintenance addicts on both natural and synthetic/street opioids, obviously). Remember as well that a great many street fentanyl death…

I don't believe it much matters. The original claim was having a controlled dose matters, so it not only matters, that's the whole conversation here. The death stats on oxycodone are staggering You make these claims about stats but don't give stats. but given free access to oxycodone People don't have free access oxycodone you're just as likely to die This is not verum. "16 million individuals worldwide have had or c…

More people die from oxycodone, even today, I think? than from heroin. Labeled regulated opioids are not safe.

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

#288

Post by mmcwilliams »

scoofy wrote: post #286
theptip wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>No. Criminalization does more harm than benefit. >For the vast majority of drug users that are not addicted, this is obvious. I'm pretty sure a couple decades of effectively legalized oxycodone and hydrocodone use shows this view is not correct.

But recreational use of those drugs isn't legalized and the highest death toll from opiate use comes from people who move from the pharmaceutical-grade drugs to unregulated street drugs.

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

#289

Post by CyberDildonics »

tptacek wrote: post #287
CyberDildonics wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it much matters. The original claim was having a controlled dose matters, so it not only matters, that's the whole conversation here. The death stats on oxycodone are staggering You make these claims about stats but don't give stats. but given free access to oxycodone People don't have free access oxycodone you're just as likely to die This is not verum. "16 million individuals worldwide have had or c…

More people die from oxycodone, even today, I think? than from heroin. Labeled regulated opioids are not safe.

Now you're way off the map. The originem claim was that controlled fentanyl dose would decrease overdoses. It wasn't about oxycodone being 'safe' (even though I gave you stats that showed 80% of deaths of from combining drugs), it wasn't about oxycodone vs heroin. Not to mention that way more people take oxycodone than heroin, so even from a stats 101 angle this doesn't make sense. Really, what is the point of a reply like this?

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

#290

Post by jaredhallen »

mikestew wrote: post #260
djur wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

POTUS: I'm pardoning everybody in your state who has a drug conviction. STATE GOV: No, you aren't. POTUS: You have to let all of those people out of prison. STATE GOV: No, we don't. POTUS: It's an emergency! STATE GOV: No, it isn't. What next? Send in the army?

What next? Send in the army? Did the Federal Government send in the military to enforce the federal 55 mph speed limit? No, your state would just get cut off from federal funding (funding for which, BTW, came from the state’s citizens to begin with). So, don’t let ‘em out? Have fun funding the housing of the pardoned with your own state’s dollars. Is it worth that much to you, Governor It-is-the-principle-not-the-mon…

This is exactly the answer. It's also the reason for perennial disputes about states rights, and the exact reason that the constitution was written the way it was - all rights not specifically enumerated lie with the states. Unfortunately, the interstate commerce clause has become the mother of all loopholes, and the federal government has ballooned to be an order of magnitude (at least) larger than it was ever intended to be. And now it wields all this unintended power and collects copious amounts of tax revenue, which it then turns around and wields against the states to exercise yet more power.
Post reply on HN