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

251–260 of 351 posts

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

#251

Post by est31 »

qingcharles wrote: post #60
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…

As a fake lawyer, I would also love to know if this applies to military convictions. What other places outside of DC does federal law apply to? (without the need for it to be interstate or some other such clause that is normally required for federal statutes to apply) Can the president pardon crimes on reservations?

> What other places outside of DC does federal law apply to?

In theory, anything owned by the federal government is under federal law. This means federal court houses, branches of the fed, federal waters (anything above 3 geographical miles from shore), national parks, etc. Sometimes law enforcement is delegated to state local authorities though.

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

#252

Post by loeg »

tptacek wrote: post #207
loeg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overdoses per abuser from regulated, labeled opiates is on the order of at least 100x lower than illicit opioids. The consistent formulation is hugely safer than street drugs with inconsistent dose.

Assuming arguendo that's true, that's a different argument than the one made upthread.

Sure. But I am responding to you, not that guy upthread.

Your implied claim, as I read it, is that "opioid-ness" is "why fentanyl kills," and there's nothing special going on because we had a bunch of deaths from licit opioids in the early 2000s. But I think that there's actually something special about illicit fentanyl in particular, as opposed to regulated opioids, and dose inconsistency is one plausible difference.

Anyway, you could just share what your thoughts are more explicitly, and that would be interesting and maybe harder to misunderstand.

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

#253

Post by FireBeyond »

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.

Citation needed.

All the stats we have focus around arrests, charges, convictions, so any systemic racism in enforcement is included.

African Americans being arrested more per capita for a crime is not inherently the same as committing more crime per capita.

I have a hard time figuring how you could ever prove your claim, because how do you show who committed crimes that were either not suspects, or crimes that weren’t discovered or reported?

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

#254

Post by amanaplanacanal »

djur wrote: post #234
aaomidi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president can however pardon in states using “emergency powers”. Our constitution does not define the breadth and depth of emergency powers and it would be up for both congress and SCOTUS to decide that the president can’t do that. I would hope that a president would just say fuck it and try this though. As much as I want things to be done “the right way”, I value lives of folks more than my neurodivergent desire…

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?

It would be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

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

#255

Post by throwawaaarrgh »

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...

Not to mention makes it impossible to get a job at a company which has government contracts, because they require drug tests.

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

#256

Post by BobaFloutist »

lokar wrote: post #71
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…

Along that line of thinking, if you prohibit alcohol and cannabis (and I assume tobacco?) to protect addicts, what about casino gambling? How about micro-transaction games that are gambling in all but name?

I mean those should actually be prohibited.

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

#257

Post by BobaFloutist »

natebc wrote: post #235
ethanbond wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we can get 2/3 of the state legislatures to agree, and 3/4 of them to ratify we can amend the constitution without Congress via a Constitutional Convention. Still long odds but we technically don't HAVE to do it with Congress. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/artic...

If we could do that, then we'd have an easy congressional majority to do it through congress.

Constitutional amendment is far harder than congressional legislation.

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

#258

Post by tptacek »

loeg wrote: post #252
tptacek wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming arguendo that's true, that's a different argument than the one made upthread.

Sure. But I am responding to you, not that guy upthread. Your implied claim, as I read it, is that "opioid-ness" is "why fentanyl kills," and there's nothing special going on because we had a bunch of deaths from licit opioids in the early 2000s. But I think that there's actually something special about illicit fentanyl in particular, as opposed to regulated opioids, and dose inconsistency is one plausible difference…

I was responding to a particular argument. I've lost track of what we would be arguing about here. My point was pretty straightforward: high-test opiates don't simply kill because they're unregulated; they do a very good job of killing simply by being widely available at all.

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

#259

Post by BobaFloutist »

londons_explore wrote: post #238
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,…

The counterargument is that these people are punished not for carrying weed, but for breaking the law. The law could say "nobody shall wear a red tshirt", and I think it would then be morally okay to arrest and punish anyone who continues to wear red tshirts. Anyone not okay with the red tshirt law can go get the law changed through the usual democratic process. But if they just ignore the law and wear a red tshirt a…

So you don't consider civil disobedience to be an appropriate way to agitate for change?

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

#260

Post by mikestew »

djur wrote: post #234
aaomidi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president can however pardon in states using “emergency powers”. Our constitution does not define the breadth and depth of emergency powers and it would be up for both congress and SCOTUS to decide that the president can’t do that. I would hope that a president would just say fuck it and try this though. As much as I want things to be done “the right way”, I value lives of folks more than my neurodivergent desire…

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-money?

Post reply on HN