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

101–110 of 351 posts

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

#101

Post by bongodongobob »

coeneedell wrote: post #96
bongodongobob wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is one of many many sources. I'm not willing to put together a comprehensive list of something that is so well known.

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

proto-n wrote: post #81
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…

Your argument about marijuana being easier to prove is a very bad scenario, regardless of how common it is/used to be. By the same logic why not make it illegal to wear socks, it would provide reason for the system to punish anybody they are 'fairly sure' is up to some other crime.

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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).

"Illegal but not criminal" for a drug just means a very clumsily implemented tax, if you want to do that, it would strictly be better to just do a tax.

> Another thought on the subject is how many small charges were simply because the police were fairly sure the defendant was up to some other crime, but were unable to make a court case over it (due to difficulty of evidence etc)? It may be that it was hard to prove the accused was doing X, but the bag of weed in their pocket was undeniable...

Eliminating crimes whose main use is as an end-run around probable cause (for arrest) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (for conviction) on other crimes (and thus, which exist to be selectively used to end-run due process) is an unqualified good thing.

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

#105

Post by bluish29 »

127361 wrote: post #92
bluish29 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's fair, that's an edge case of the law but probably is not the general trend.

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

#106

Post by 4RealFreedom »

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.

The problem is they really just helped out the black market. They didn't legalize anything. They stopped prosecuting small amounts.

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

#107

Post by kennywinker »

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]

Fentanyl is legal. It’s part of most epidurals given during childbirth, used for palliative care, and for all kinds of pain relief in medical settings.

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

#108

Post by riffic »

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.

but with a record can they get jobs, pass a background check, et cetera?

This pardon is a good thing, why are we discussing it like it's not a move in the right direction?

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

#109

Post by [deleted] »

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]

[deleted]

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

#110

Post by tptacek »

taneq wrote: post #47
tptacek wrote: post #2

Reminder that Biden can only pardon federal crimes, and that very few people have federal convictions for simple possession.

Honest question, isn't there a bunch of stuff (including drug stuff) that the local cops don't pursue because it's the feds' job? Or is this just my small random assortment of U.S. crime drama viewing biasing my sample set?

Drug prosecutions are overwhelming local (meaning that they're state crimes).
Post reply on HN