Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not why fentanyl kills.
Fentanyl kills by overdose.
Very few opioids kill by underdose.
Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
271–280 of 351 posts
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#272One 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…
> If we pushed even half of the money spent policing the war on drugs into homelessness support, mental health services, and addiction counseling and harm minimization like needle exchanges, we’d see a huge reduction in harm.
This point seems plausible, are there any sources that might prove it?
Also your point about racial discrimination might be a good utilitarian argument for it's better to let those racially discriminated against free alongside some folks who were also upto other crimes... The replies have definitely given me more food for thought.
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#273One 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 one should go to jail because the police are "fairly sure".
to be clear the kind of "fairly sure" i was referring to was the kind of undeniable first hand proof, but difficult to prove in court. Such things exist, a police officer can give testimony in court about what happened, and it's subject to a level of scrutiny, but their body cam recording confirming evidence makes it nigh impossible to argue (instead folks go for inadmissible evidence or other avenues to discredit the evidence).
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#274One 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…
> It may be that it was hard to prove the accused was doing X, but the bag of weed in their pocket was undeniable... Your point being?
My point being that sometimes criminals get away with things not because we don't know who is doing what, but because we cannot make a court case. IANAL but my understanding is that the bar (no pun intended) is extremely high (no pun intended).
Some will say "It should be high" but in the realworld we need a pragmatic approach that balances difficulty of proof vs innocent people incarcerated. It's my assertion that the only system which has 0 chance of false positives is the one which incarcerates no one. So it's about finding a good minima / balance.
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#275I 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,…
Does something else being worse (alcohol) but acceptable mean that an alternative (cannabis) should be acceptable? If alcohol was not already widely (ab)used in a county would they be wrong to prohibit it? (Note not meant in any form of malice, intended as probing questions for discussion)
"Should be acceptable" is the wrong way to look at it. "Should be illegal" is the question that should be answered.
There's a subtle but important distinction between
> Alcohol is allowed, so cannabis should be allowed.
and
> Alcohol is not illegal, so cannabis should not be illegal.
Our legal system is a default-allow denylist: unless a law says you can't do something, you can. The government doesn't grant permission. It removes it.
So because the government hasn't made the case that we should ban alcohol, I think it's on them to prove that cannabis is somehow worse to justify its banning.
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#276For 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...
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 rescheduling recommendation from HHS."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthoban/2023/10/10/schedule...
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, drugs come with risks. You know what else triggers latent psychosis? Alcohol. Prohibition is not the answer to this problem, education, harm reduction, the freedom to seek information and help without prosecution, is.
> You know what else triggers latent psychosis? Alcohol. from the link I posted: "The risk for developing schizophrenia spectrum disorders is greatest with cannabis, although other substances such as amphetamines, hallucinogens, opioids, and sedatives also increase risk"
I'm truly sorry about your brother. I lost a sister and it wrecked me.
But statistically, he got very, very unlucky. I quoted this in another post[1]:
“The incidence rate of cannabis-induced psychosis increased steadily from 2.8 per 100,000 person years in 2006 to 6.1 per 100,000 person years in 2016.”
If people live to be an average of 80, that would affect about 1 in 200 people over a lifetime. Incidentally, the disease that took my sister has almost exactly the same incidence.
Again, I'm very sorry. Both our families were hit with very unlikely tragedies.
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#278For 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...
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.
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
It could be because it would prompt a huge pain in the ass process or question of, does their discharge status change? Granted, they dont (at least not during my service or my dad's, to give context I served 2013-2018 and dad 1995-2003) give our dishonorable discharged. But a general discharge or other than honorable (OTH). If these are pardoned UCMJ violations that lead to a discharge, does it prompt to change their…
First, let me say that I think your comment is fantastic. Not that many people have the capacity to think through military justice issues in all their nuance. New convening authorities often have a more tenuous grasp of the interplay between courts-martial and discharge characterizations than you just demonstrated.
There's potentially some question as to whether the President has the power to pardon the conviction and impose an OTH, because an OTH implicates a liberty interest and requires a hearing unless waived. See, e.g., Vierrether v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 357, 364 (1992), aff'd without op., 6 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1030 (1994).
However, I'd be hard pressed to find any objection to unilaterally imposing an administrative discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. Alternatively, there is nothing preventing the President from making the pardon conditional.
Re: Granting pardon for the offense of simple possession of or use of marijuana
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Federal government took exclusive jurisdiction over post offices in the 1940s.