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

191–200 of 351 posts

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

#191

Post by loeg »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #183
tptacek wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have to. We've had a nationwide epidemic of deaths from regulated, labeled opiates, which is a fact that refutes your argument without requiring me to provide an alternative.

You are making a claim then saying you don't have to back it up while making another dubious claim. Among synthetic opioid–involved overdose deaths in 2016, almost 80% involved another drug or alcohol, such as: another opioid, heroin, cocaine, prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, alcohol, psychostimulants, and antidepressants. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/other-drugs.html

FWIW, 2016 is somewhat dated as far as fentanyl goes. It has really exploded since that time.

> In 2021, nearly 71,000 drug overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (other than methadone) occurred in the United States, which is more deaths than from any other type of opioid. Synthetic opioid-involved death rates increased by over 22% from 2020 to 2021 and accounted for nearly 88% of all opioid-involved deaths in 2021. The number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids in 2021 was nearly 23 times the number in 2013.

Same CDC page, "opioid" tab. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/opioid-overdose.html

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

#192

Post by gregsher88 »

"As I have said before, convictions for simple possession of marijuana have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities."

This has always seemed like cruel and unusual punishment to me. Effectively a life sentence for misdemeanor crimes. This is a good first step, but it does not go far enough.

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

#193

Post by iudqnolq »

dheuoddjo wrote: post #161
iudqnolq wrote: post #147

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. I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges.

> 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…

> If you’re more likely to engage in criminal activity, you’re more likely to be smoking pot while engaging in criminal activity (again, on average).

I think a slightly simpler way of putting your point is that Black people are more likely to be serious criminals than white people. Am I missing some nuance?

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

#194

Post by joquarky »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #98

At university two of my friends went down a dark road with Marijuana use. One destroyed his very bright future - went from a top student to a dropout. The other one had severe mental psychosis episodes, the last one being where he physically threatened other students with a knife and was arrested and subsequently medically repatriated back to his home country - his parents were financially ruined by the cost of getti…

Utopia is not achievable, and the path to hell is laid with good intentions.

> There is a limit if one wants a functioning society that is on the whole safe and high trust.

We all have different thresholds on where that limit lies. In the film Demolition Man, Dr. Raymond Cocteau's vision of a safe San Angeles did not allow sports, swearing, eating meat, or consuming sugar or caffeine because they are "bad" for you.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

caslon wrote: post #86
oooyay wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They clearly cannot be trusted with it, and they have no impetus to remove historically misclassified drugs off the list, as it would reduce their overall budget. If that's their logic then someone there can't do math. Between fentanyl, other opioids, and meth they have plenty to do.

Meth is historically misclassified, too. Why are we drawing the line at marijuana? If we lower the scheduling of opioids to Schedule IV, fentanyl usage in the United States would drop almost entirely within a month. Importing clean prescription drugs from other countries would have low enough risk that the reward would be easily met. Odds are, it would also undercut wider organized drug crime. You may find this artic…

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by mattnewton »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #59
dessimus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else was the government to continue to systemically hold down minorities in this country post-Civil Rights Act, while simultaneously enriching the Military Industrial Complex by flooding local law enforcement with military equipment paid for by US taxpayers?

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 very hard to read this article without concluding that Nixon was such a scheming overlord leading the charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

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

#197

Post by nextaccountic »

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.

this is true, but the harm is so small (at least when compared to alcohol) that it shouldn't meet any threshold for prohibition nowadays

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

#198

Post by cheeze »

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.

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

#199

Post by 0ct4via »

dheuoddjo wrote: post #161
iudqnolq wrote: post #147

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. I have no idea what you mean about multiple charges.

> 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't a disproportionately racist response in the WoD and the application of anti-cannabis laws on the citizenry, you need to open your eyes.

Attempting to claim "the prior convictions are known and are a factor" without admitting the disproportionate affect race has on such convictions being sought in the first place, is ignorant.

"Arrests don't occur in a vacuum." - If you deliberately and willfully ignore the existence of racism in the policing and justice systems, then you're not considering all the factors - and are being misinformed at best, and deliberately disingenuous at worst.

For example, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409 - a world championship medallist and Olympian sprinter were arrested on entirely fictitious charges of having suspected drugs and weapons - with no basis, and with no evidence of such items being found.

If you can't see how the factor of race fits into the application of these laws against certain citizens more, that's your failure - it's nothing new.

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

#200

Post by CPLX »

fsckboy wrote: post #179
CPLX wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How effective were the laws against it?

difficult to measure for sure, like the effectiveness of many criminal statues. How effective are the various restrictions on tobacco, and are you passionate and principled that we should lift all those too, because the side effects are less important than personal freedom?

I think similar restrictions on tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol, including banned or highly restricted advertising, make a lot of sense.

There’s a difference between personal liberty and the regulation of markets and commercial activity.

Post reply on HN