Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcbro141 | Hacker News Reader

Note: The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession are not charged Federally. This only applies to the Federal charges specified, Biden can't do anything about the State level charges most people are charged with.

Just noting for non-American readers.

View on HN

He encouraged all state governors to do the same:

>Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...)

This. The fed government started the war on drugs, and a powerful way to start shifting away is ending it at fed level.

It‘a simple leadership.

Even if he only has power to issue pardons at the federal level, this sort of measure has plenty of value as a symbolic gesture. It kind of signals a mentality shift.

Yep! And IIRC, states that have fully legalized marijuana still have has big headaches dealing with the fact that it's outlawed by the feds.

Still outlawed.

He's forgiving student debt without doing free college, and pardoning those convicted of simple possession without preventing somebody tomorrow from being arrested for simple possession.

Has he made sure that people with drug convictions are eligible for student loans? That seems like a conjunction of the two things that he's half-assed. If he hasn't, there's no one in the administration that actually cares about this, it's just pure midterm pandering.

edit:

I think this may be what I was looking for: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents//2021/06/17/2021-1...

> This letter provides information about the early implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act's removal of Selective Service and drug conviction requirements for Title IV eligibility, as well as actions that institutions must take as these changes are implemented in phases across award years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. Certain other aspects of the law being implemented are discussed in separate communications.

> and pardoning those convicted of simple possession without preventing somebody tomorrow from being arrested for simple possession.

He is also directing the AG and Secretary of HHS is reexamine the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act which is the process in law which is needed to change the legal regime applicable to it without Congressional action.

He’s not a dictator who can rewrite law at a whim.

The student debt changes are substantial even if it's not free college. The more important part of the package is the changes to the terms of repayment:

From the press release[1]:

Make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers by:

    Cutting monthly payments in half for undergraduate loans. The Department of Education is proposing a new income-driven repayment plan that protects more low-income borrowers from making any payments and caps monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income—half of the rate that borrowers must pay now under most existing plans. This means that the average annual student loan payment will be lowered by more than $1,000 for both current and future borrowers. 

    Fixing the broken Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program by proposing a rule that borrowers who have worked at a nonprofit, in the military, or in federal, state, tribal, or local government, receive appropriate credit toward loan forgiveness. These improvements will build on temporary changes the Department of Education has already made to PSLF, under which more than 175,000 public servants have already had more than $10 billion in loan forgiveness approved.

This perhaps by far the bigger set of changes because it ensures the terms of remaining and future loans remain serviceable and proportionate to the actual earning potential of the recipient, which is half the problem with the system (at least if you simply must run it this way).

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

The student loan system is not the real problem, and it's less of a problem now than before Obama (one of the few things that he did good on imo.) The problem is how expensive college is, not these games with paperwork.

Seems like both are huge problems. Tuition costs is the bigger problem, but I don't think the president can force them to lower their prices.

He could expand funding for colleges, or create more of them, so they have to compete on prices. This would benefit everybody instead of the minority that signed up for bad loans.

I'm not constitutional lawyer, but those sound like things only the legislature can do, which is beyond his control. The things he has done are things the executive has in it's power.

I have a firm belief that presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators, of either party, that are standing in the way of things that have overwhelming popular support.

Instead, they just throw treats to their base when they're in trouble. Treats that are written on water. If I hear another thing about the Dreamers.

People keep saying that he can't do anything because he's not a dictator. He can't do anything because he doesn't believe in it, and even if he did doesn't have any ideological standards for his Congressional party that would ever get him majority support for anything that doesn't have lobbying checks behind it.

> I have a firm belief that presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators

That’s exactly what he just did with the pardons. He’s signaling to voters that he wants to legalize it and needs the right partners in Congress to make it happen. From your other comments I don’t get the impression you’re open to discussing the implications so much as you just want to complain about Biden.

He doesn't need congress to "legalize it" he only needs the DEA and FDA to unscheduled it. He can do that as expeditiously as he likes with an executive order.

Wait, genuinely confused here. Do we really want the president to make unilateral executive moves overriding the existing organizations with actual experts on how to do things? Isn't that kind of bad and dictatorial? Weren't these organizations originally created because the president isn't an expert in drugs and therefore should have a fleet of drug experts with the authority to make decisions?

Placing and maintaining marijuana as a schedule 1 drug clearly indicates that these departments are not experts.

Wow, that is certainly moving the goal posts faster than QAnon and make me question why on earth would we trust the same experts that have a history of lying. God I remember the propaganda they spewed years ago about marijuana making my testicles shrink and that it was a gateway to meth.

Ah the "expert fallacy." No, there are very few "experts." Mostly just career deep-staters or unelected-bureaucrats or whatever else you want to call them. Just look at the great results we've gotten so far from the "fleet of drug experts."

I mean yeah I think the FDA, CDC, NIH, OSHA, EPA etc. have done some really awesome shit compared to when we didn't have them. The EPA in particular is doing such a good job moneyed lobbyists are preemtively trying to cut off their ability to regulate emissions.

Yeah that opioid epidemic was some "really awesome shit." What would we ever do without the FDA and their regulatory capture in the pharma-industrial complex?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-chief-approved-oxycontin...

I mean frankly the opioid epidemic could only be discovered because of organizations like the CDC tracking stuff like this, so yeah that's pretty awesome. Remember that before we had organizations like the CDC and the FDA things like opioids had no regulation at all. These aren't perfect organizations and we should always be critical and pushing them to do better, but it is also vitally important to acknowledge they are worth having around at all.

> presidents should be accomplishing these things in the legislature through party discipline and direct appeals to voters to help him rid himself of specific legislators

And how, exactly, do you propose he do that, given the current political landscape in the US?

Congress is gridlocked. Incumbents almost never lose their seats. The people who care enough to vote and support the issues are already voting as hard as they can.

This announcement? This is him doing what he can, both in terms of his legal ability to change things, as the chief executive, and in terms of using the bully pulpit, making clear where his and his administrations' priorities lie.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying "if the President can't force the legislation he wants to materialize and get through a Congress that is historically dysfunctional, that means he doesn't really care about the issue."

> And how, exactly, do you propose he do that, given the current political landscape in the US?

This can always be an excuse. Things can't be done because they can't be done. The fact is that he's giving speeches about how much he hates China and Russia, and not about legalizing pot.

He's also one of the engineers of the shitty situation that we're in, he's had an abusively and militantly anti-drug pol his entire career, so I'm not ever going to be convinced by this woe is me lark. He's not doing his best, he's being pushed (if he's even being adequately informed.) The best case scenario is that some people in his administration think that drug law reform is important, either morally or politically. There is no scenario in which the actual Biden is sympathetic towards drug users, or regretful of the lives that he personally contributed to ruining over drugs.

> how, exactly, do you propose he do that

The answer is do politics. If he doesn't know how to do politics, it would be better if someone else were doing the job.

> he's had an abusively and militantly anti-drug pol his entire career

Ok sure, not only that, but he is the president who has the least number of spare brain cells to devote to an issue that he opposes on principle.

And yet of all the presidents we've had in the past 4 decades, it wasn't the B-movie star, nor the frat boy, not the draft dodger(s), nor the iconoclast reality TV star, nor even our first and only Black president -- but Biden the Old Catholic who actually got this seemingly simple reform with simple possession of pot.

As you said, he's the guy with the least reason and capacity to get it done, and yet here we are. How are you managing to complain that what he did was so simple and miniscule, and yet no one else came close to doing it?

> The best case scenario is that some people in his administration think that drug law reform is important, either morally or politically. There is no scenario in which the actual Biden is sympathetic towards drug users, or regretful of the lives that he personally contributed to ruining over drugs.

I wouldn't be too sure that Biden had staff more devoted toward drug reform than Obama [0]. But I guess you're stuck with that position since you can't fathom that Biden personally pushed for reform. So how did Biden end up with this successful drug reform team, just random chance? If Biden is so stridently anti-drug, so absolutely useless toward pushing reform as you think he must be, then how did that not trickle down to his senior staff and who they hired and what the prioritized?

> The answer is do politics. If he doesn't know how to do politics, it would be better if someone else were doing the job.

Politics is all about building consensus through compromise and collaboration. Biden may hate marijuana reform, but he prioritized and executed in a way that past presidents didn't, ostensibly because he knew it was something that lots of people love. How is that not great politics?

[0] https://www.marijuanamoment.net/new-book-obama-considered-de...

Biden still deserves the criticism that he does not believe in marijuana reform and may not follow through any further. For example, he excluded/discriminated members of his own cabinet that admitted to marijuana use while choosing a Vice President that admitted to marijuana use, which is puzzling.

> He's not doing his best, he's being pushed (if he's even being adequately informed.)

If this is true, then this is politics working as intended.

Seriously, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work: The officials we elect do what we, the people, want, not just push their personal beliefs at all costs.

I would 1000% rather elect someone I agree with on 50% of issues, who is willing to be swayed by popular opinion, than someone I agree with on 80% of issues, who is going to try to enforce their personal beliefs as law no matter what the people actually want.

He's being pushed? He promised to do this himself during the campaign. There is no credible evidence of any kind that he did this because he was "being pushed". In any case, it's the right move, and he did the right thing, and honestly, people like you need to pipe down, relax, smoke a fucking joint, be honest, and give him credit here where credit is due.

As for Biden "knowing how to do politics", you might want to spend some time studying Biden's astonishing legislative results over the past few months. He's apparently quite good at politics.

Just for fun: these "people in his [Biden's] administration" you speak of...who chose those people? I'm a little confused. Perhaps you can clear this point up.

Just be honest: you have 937 axes to grind and you are desperate to avoid giving Biden any credit, ever, for anything.

He did? Just not on this point or student loans. The inflation reduction act had been blocked in the senate by his own party defectors and he managed to get them to flip in a last minute political coup on what the republicans thought was going to happen

Except your argument doesn't hold water. Biden isn't "in trouble"; his approval rating has actually been steadily rising of late, and this policy change reportedly took some time to work on.

You also really need to do some homework on the US House and the degree to which gerrymandering has made it completely impossible for your dreams of "appeals to voters" to work.

Fully legalizing marijuana does require legislative action. The executive might have the power to ask the FDA to remove it from schedule 1, but by international treaty (ratified by the legislature) the US is required to enforce restrictions against marijuna according to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

That is incorrect, according to Congress, themselves:

“Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.”

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204

I mention the executive branch's ability (via the FDA) to remove it from schedule 1, but that's not the same thing as complete descheduling.

They also have the ability to initiate or request that proceedings initiate under the Convention to have cannabis deleted from the schedules.

edit: but apparently, besides that or whatever other options the executive branch review discovers, or whatever the judicial branch comes up with, you are right

https://businessofcannabis.com/2022/09/16/us-court-of-appeal...

> but by international treaty (ratified by the legislature)

The Senate alone.

> Fully legalizing marijuana does require legislative action

Rescheduling it subject to treaty restrictions from treaties in force, but Presidents can and have withdrawn the US from treaties without Congressional action. This may be unlikely in this case, but does not exceed executive power.

Amending the treaty requires a bunch of other countries plus the Senate, and modifying the status of marijuana inconsistent with the treaty while it is in force would take a change in law by Congress (but would violate the treaty.)

Note that the current treaty status only requires medical use / prescription requirements, so it could be substantially less restricted than it currently is federally without running into treaty issues.

> Presidents can and have withdrawn the US from treaties without Congressional action. This may be unlikely in this case, but does not exceed executive power.

Can you give an example? I am not aware of any authority granted to the executive to override the legislature in this way. Is there an explicitly granted loophole or are these cases of executive overreach?

Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...

The Iran nuclear deal wasn't a treaty, which is why he was able to pull out.

Remember the time Trump withdrew from the World Health Organization?

Trump certainly made a lot of noise about threatening to, but did he ever actually do that?

Kinda. The process takes too long for him to have withdrawn, but he formally started the process and Biden canceled it. https://www.axios.com/2020/07/07/trump-withdraw-world-health...

> but by international treaty (ratified by the legislature) the US is required to enforce restrictions against marijuna

Except when contradicted by the constitution or established legal process as a Party state.

Student debt forgiveness is also something that only the legislature can do - Nancy Pelosi admitted this as recently as a year ago. Biden doesn't have the power to forgive student debt by himself, but he's doing it anyway, it's blatantly illegal and no-one cares.

Given the pardon fully restores all rights I would say yes he has done that. Of course again this only applies to federal convictions

He doesn't have the power to change the law on his own. He's requested that the justice department reschedule the drug. I'm not sure what more within his power would allow him to "whole ass" this.

Tell DEMOCRATS he would veto any legislation until they pass whatever he wants. They can do it, they have the votes and have passed legislation with 0 Republican support. But that is far from necessary here.

With regard to Marijuana and the controlled substances act, Biden could issue an executive order to change the schedule of any substance right away. He could also issue an EO for the DOJ/IRS to change any regulations regarding marijuana that impact legal states or MJ related prosecutions.

He has a lot more power than this action implies, especially regarding things that aren't made law via statue but regulations set by executive branch departments.

Not waiting to the last minute, the timing is highly suspect and looks like him buying more votes.

Yes, the pardon wipes it off your record.

he's also moving toward removing it from the classification that would leave it as a scheduled drug federally and urging state govs to legalize it locally.

Reference por favor

> Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances. This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.

Note that those headaches are still largely unresolved by this. It only covers possession, and it's a pardon, so possession is still technically outlawed.

Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later.

One of the early mini-scandals of the Biden White House was how "dozens of young White House staffers" were in trouble because they had believed "initial indications" that casual pot use would not automatically disqualify them from the job. And that seemed like a sure sign that Biden would be a real hard ass on pot use. Only 5 staffers out of "hundreds" were ultimately disqualified from the policy, and given what Biden has done today, we have some assurance he really is going to be sympathetic and reasonable about pot.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-white-house-sandbags-sta...

> Yeah, but hopefully the symbolic value adds to the momentum for actual decriminalization, sooner or later.

He’s directed the officials that are empowered by law to change its status without Congress doing anything to begin the process by which that would happen. So, its not just a symbolic act that may effect that sooner or later.

What are the headaches and how do they solve it? Just interested what it means in practice with different state and federal laws.

Here's an ancient example from 2013:

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-won...

> Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana-legalization laws in the two states. The federal government also will not make it a priority to close down recreational marijuana stores, so long as the stores abide by state regulations, according to the memo.

The Attorney General de-prioritizing a crime sounds like a cop-out, but eliminating the incentive for federal agents to chase down a type of crime means those agents effectively won't enforce those laws...because they'll get dinged for wasting time that should be spent on actual priorities.

Here's an example of how the federal restriction can still be a pain to Colorado pot stores:

> Because pot is still illegal federally, banks will likely continue to refuse marijuana business accounts, employers can continue to fire workers who smoke pot off-the-job and marijuana users who receive federal aid or live in federal housing will remain at risk.

IIRC, it wasn't at all uncommon for state residents to think that they could smoke worry free b/c of state legalization, only to realize too late that their employer technically receives federal aid and now had the right to fire them. And even if the the U.S. Attorney General says "nah we probably won't care about that"...a lot of employers are going to err on the side of caution.

Since Biden said that he's directed the government to look into things that are on the path to legalization, that mentality is likely to trickle down to every part of the government. Private employers might still be anal though.

> What are the headaches and how do they solve it?

I live in California, where marijuana is legal.

The headaches here are that federal police sometimes go bonkers if they find totally minor stuff like edibles or paraphernalia during some sort of inspection or traffic stop that they do on federal land.

Oh, easy, just don’t carry anything on federal land.

Not so easy.

- Any BLM land is federal. Some people take their guns to BLM land for shooting. Better not have any marijuana related stuff on you when you do that (even if you’re just accompanying and not shooting).

- Any national park is federal land.

- Some local extracurricular activities happen on federal lands. Little league sports teams, Boy Scouts, etc. Again, not that you have to be using at the time, but if you get into an accident at one of these facilities and the federal police sees the state-legal stuff in your car, you can be charged with a federal crime for that.

- Any federal building and attached properties like parking lots. For example, if you’re going to the VA to pick up a friend who just had some medical treatment and have an accident, the investigating federal officer can charge you if you have state-legal marijuana goods.

- Sometimes you don’t even know when you are on or are traveling through federal land, so you can’t always prepare. For example, the Laguna Seca race track is near (borders on?) federal lands with federal roads and federal police, but the scope of the federal lands is not always clearly marked. So choosing which roads you take to the track determines whether you are breaking the law or not.

- Most major airports are federal. As such, even a flight from SFO to LA is supposed to be free of state-legal marijuana.

I don’t know how often possession is prosecuted in these situations, but there are enough stories bouncing around that it’s slightly concerning given that, imho, the number of stories should be zero.

The solution is to have the message from the top being that they don’t want to see these charges ever in CA and similar stares (waste of time), and any extracurricular behavior like roughing someone up or treating them like a criminal will result in an administrative action against the officer.

I doubt this will happen soon.

I think the best we can hope for is for prosecutors and senior officers to be consistently dismissive about any low key possession charges that junior officers make.

For what it's worth, the only thing stopping the federal agents from arresting you off of federal land for a joint is that it's not a priority for them, and they aren't going to be giving you a traffic ticket to notice it in passing. If you yelled that you were smoking weed across the street from FBI headquarters but on CA land they totally could go arrest you.

Or, to put it a different way. It's not that it's legal in CA. It's that the state won't do anything about it.

Not to be the bearer of bad news but it actually suggests an election season and not a mentality shift. We're gonna need to vote the average age of congress down about 20 years to see any realistic change on this IMO.

Pardoning people during election season is very, very much a mentality shift.

In the past Presidents and Governors pardoned people on their last days in office - when they’re least accountable to electors.

Now they (one anyway) is doing it right before and election.

That’s really big.

Pardons don’t happen exclusively during president’s final days in office: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics

The outrageous ones that come in the news happen at the end when there is little to no accountability or blowback to worry about

Agreed - FoxNews has already started attacking this - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pardoning-all-prior-f... Just go further to the right cesspool to see what you're saying. He'll be attacked for this. I'll grant that he'll be qually praised for it and that it may rally his voters, though I doubt it's a net positive for him in the rhetoric chambers.

i just read the article you linked to - what part of it is “attacking” this? The whole article is basically a rehash of the White house press release (which is fine - it just reports the facts)

Or is the “cesspool” you are describing no longer just consist of people who disagree with you, but has now become people who could disagree with you in the future?

Did you watch the video in the article? That’s why I linked it. The cess pool are the Mark Levins, Bonginos, etc… they are vile. I’m willing to bet that they will attack this tomorrow. (edit) Didn't even take until tomorrow courtesy of Hannity - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6313390453112 - (~1.30 in)

Are we seeing the same article?

The only things above the fold on the article I see (in a full screen browser winder), are the title, a giant headline that "Study links high-THC marijuana to mental health issues" in a video player, and the same headline immediately below the video player.

Scrolling down the next thing I see is two paragraphs of un-emphasized and dry text describing the announcement, followed by "DEMOCRATIC SENATORS HIT BIDEN FOR 'EXTRAORDINARILY DISAPPOINTING' STANCE ON MARIJUANA" in all caps, highlighted, and underlined (as a link).

After that we have a picture of Biden, and four more paragraphs of text (as above). We round off with a video with the headline ""RAINBOW FENTANYL" WARNINGS OF AHEAD OF HALLOWEEN".

Edit: And finally the main body of the article closes with advertisement for their app, saying this is similar to steps taken by new york, and acknowledging AP. Just to be complete.

I think the context which fox puts this announcement in... really speaks for itself.

It shocks me how many people link articles they don’t even read.

What on that page is an attack?? Other than the ADs being an attack against the readers.

I thought the video they attached, which is what most people will watch is so negative that it’s an attack on the decision

many people hide those videos or straight ignore them. i’d be hesitant to say most are going to watch a video, that’s certainly the quickest way for me to ignore your content.

I'll cede that point - the video, in my opinion, made my point and the fact that they went out of their way to include it, to what I concede is a rather factual article still make it seem like an attack to me.

What’s ironic is that IMHO it should be at least more of a state level decision, which should be supported by the right. Of course logical consistency isn’t a hallmark of politics. If Pres. Biden supports something then obviously it should be opposed (this works for the left as well).

The “right” has multiple factions just like the “left.” A significant chunk of the right is social conservatives that don’t really care about the legal nuances, just like a dominant chunk of the left is social liberals that feel the same way.

Totally agree that there’s a leftist cesspool as well. Never said there wasn’t.

I’m not calling anything a “cesspool” I’m just addressing the issue of “logical consistency.” The GOP comprises Midwestern church moms and oil tycoons. Democrats include social justice activists and Silicon Valley billionaires. The fact that the policies emerging from these coalitions often aren’t logically consistent is no surprise.

It still seems to be a subject that’s rarely, if ever, covered.

I saw this on Reddit and it resonated. Yes, it’s the election season and we’re seeing democracy in action: that’s when elected officials do things you like and then you vote for them again. Not sure why you’re making it sound like a bad thing.

No federal law is changing. This is a one time get out of jail free card. People arrested for the same crimes after he pardons current people in prison don't get the benefit.

No, and that’s because he doesn’t have the power to unilaterally do that, but he is trying to get it rescheduled

> he is trying to get it rescheduled

Do you have a link about this? Because he's shown hostility towards marijuana legalization, promised to veto it if it was sent to him, and in the past supported draconian drug laws.

https://mobile.twitter.com/POTUS/status/1578097878094024712

Point 3.

Tweets do not official policy make. If you need examples, you need but examine his tweets all through 2019 and 2020 - they're loaded with promises and plans. This is certainly not exclusive to POTUS.

Show me a policy document along with a bill from that office and I'll consider it more than an election year symbolic gesture.

This feels like a too mean-spirited take. According to this[0] he may not need a bill, and in fact may have taken the first step

0: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...

His tweets 2019 and 2020 are indeed "loaded with promises and plans", but that's because he was literally not president at that time. Now that he is president, tweets from @POTUS are intended and expected official statements. Sure he could be completely bullshitting with his tweets, but he could do the same with a "policy document"

(White House and executive offices don't produce "bills", other than signing the ones proposed and passed through Congress)

Policy or not, intent was clearly declared. Not vague statements, but specific actions including a direct callout to the secretary of HHS to initiate the rescheduling review.

Obviously we can only wait to see what comes next, but I'm not sure what more you'd want? The review process has to occur, so there's no additional "policy" to be had at the moment. Obviously there's a possibility that rescheduling doesn't happen as a result of that review, but that hardly seems likely given the current political and social climate around marijuana.

Seemed like a pretty straight-forward way to communicate "and this is step 2, which is a work in progress".

I think there's a huge difference between tweets with "promises and plans" (especially from before he was actually elected), and tweets saying "I have done this thing. I am doing this other thing."

It's reasonable to be cautious about a politician making a promise in anything but the most legally-binding possible way. It's not reasonable to straight-out call that politician a bald-faced liar if he hasn't demonstrated a propensity for such lies (unlike some I could easily name).

People can change their mind.

And when they do it like this it shows the are opportunist

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

He doesn’t technically have the unilateral power to prevent future people from being charged federally with simple possession, but in reality, he kind of does (while he’s president).

Sends a pretty clear message to any federal prosecutor that is deciding if they want to charge this. Obviously, the prosecutor can spend the time and effort on this if they want, but it’s time that will probably be better served doing something else if they don’t want to see their work wiped away by the stroke of a pen in the future.

Technically it's not a get out of jail free card, as I understand it, no one is actually held in jail for this right now. Though it does remove it from their records.

>no one is actually held in jail for this right now

6000+ people were.

He can and will suggest to the DOJ that they don’t charge anyone for simple possession of marijuana, and they won’t.

Edit: of course that’s temporary.

The scheduling of marijuana is changing.

It's being looked at, but that's not at this point guaranteed

That makes it sustainable.

Now the president can pardon people for this before every election!

It's a solid political play, and I don't recall seeing that done before (I've only been voting since '97). We'll likely see this kind of thing more often now.

Because they stop doing the things you like once the election is over

Sure, but then there is another election. After the election is before the election.

If I elect someone to lead the country for 4 years, I’d prefer they lead the country for at least 3.75 of those years, not for two 4-6 month stints in 4 years.

(Neither party has a monopoly on this BS.)

I use cannabis daily and am all for it being legalized and those in jail released. However, I cannot join you in a victory lap here because Biden's pardon affects nobody. As far as I know, there isn't anybody in federal prison on simple possession charges. That being the case, this smacks of politicking, optics, and opportunism rather than anything meaningful. If Biden wanted to do something substantial, he'd sign legislation legalizing cannabis (including growing your own).

He can only sign legislation presented to him to sign by Congress.

It's bad because there are people that have been sitting in prison that could have been released over a year and a half ago, but Biden would rather let them rot for a while longer just so he could score political points at a more convenient time.

Shit's illegal and people are mad. Dude tries to cut some folks a break and people are mad. Conclusion: some people are born mad and gonna stay that way regardless.

Hm.. can you imagine homosexuality being banned and people being mad just cause they pardon only a certain type before elections?

Intentionally or otherwise you're equating lifestyle choices with sexual orientation and that is not a good look for all the same reasons that the rationale behind conversion therapy is garbage.

Who got a break in this deal exactly? There isn't anybody in federal prison for simple possession charges. It's like him giving every man, woman, and child in Antarctica a pony, only not as efficacious.

Yeah he totally should have issued state-level pardons for possession. What in the hell is wrong with this guy...

Someone higher up in the tree said there wasn’t a single person sitting in federal pen for this. I’m not sure, but I can’t imagine it’s frequently charged federally

From a legal point of view, when is marijuana possession a federal offence and when is it a state offence?

Presumably if you're caught with weed in DC then it's federal. But under what circumstances could you be found in possession with marijuana anywhere else and have it be a matter for the federal government, not the state one?

Federal park land?

The difference is that if they were winning they wouldn't do this. This is textbook vote buying. They are absolutely terrified of the election season after the market collapse, inflation, housing situation, war in ukraine, etc. Easy to lock in quite a few votes throwing a bone. Republicans did the same thing last election season and capitulated (temporarily) on a lot of their positions in order to pull in the independents.

I wish you were correct. But there's a difference between doing something because you know it's right (implore congress to pass legislation on marijuana immediately) and because you need the votes. Only one of them is virtuous even though both ostensibly benefit the people.

I thought he campaigned on this. If I'm remembering that right, then this isn't so much the case of someone doing something just to try to get reelected (is he even planning on running again?), but rather someone fulfilling the promise they made to the people who elected him the first time.

Campaigning on something and not taking action until midterms is completely different. It is clear if he wasn't scared he wouldn't have taken action at all and both him and his VP has a history of being vehemently opposed to marijuana legalization.

The timing might be strategic, but he did say he'd do it and now he has, so it seems weird to say it was clear he wasn't going to. Biden has a horrible history but he's also been a supporter of things he spoke out against in the past. The degree to which his recent actions or his past actions better reflect his actual beliefs is debatable, but even if it's just for political points, he's doing the things he said he would.

Mentality change on marijuana? Well down that path already.

This was a campaign promise from Biden, and why shouldn't he reap credit from following through by doing this is an election season. At least he's not on the ballot, and I can think of many worse things politicians regularly do.

Consider also that these federal marijuana convicts were charged due to such simple infractions as carrying weed onto federal property such as national parks (given their greater popularity in recent times).

This shouldn't be too controversial.

Legitimate ask for citation as I don't recall this and couldn't find a reference to it now that Google is spammed by today's announcement.

Google for "biden marijuana campaign promise" brings it right up.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/joe-biden-marijuana-...

This is absolutely about the election. Why didn’t he do this in his first 100 days? Because it wasn’t election season.

Hey there was a lot of money to print and send out of the country. Takes a lot of time and effort keeping the printers going. He did the best he could.

It's an election gimmick for sure. However, there's always a choice of possible election gimmicks - and in the past, this one had never been chosen. Now, it has been. There must be a reason for it - and one may reasonably assume the reason is that there is enough support for relaxing the federal prohibition on marijuana.

Great point, but even 20 years down still isn't all that young.

Good? Power to the people?

“But it’s symbolic” is literally the cope of our generation.

It means practically nothing and we must demand more than symbolism.

Legalization isn't like fixing climate change or curing cancer. It is literally just a question of getting enough voters and politicians to agree that the current laws are stupid. A 79-year-old President signing this pardon is actually a huge step in forming that consensus.

Voters already agree the laws need to change. It's congress holding us back against the will of the people who elected them. Republicans have already spoken out against this pardon.

Well, that's to be expected. If it was The Orange Man who'd done this, you can take an educated guess at who'd be speaking out against it. Congress is a middle school playground.

This was not symbolic. There are thousands of people for whom this action is the farthest thing from symbolic. Thousands of people who will be released from cages and able to see their families again. This pardon is absolutely making a difference in a lot of people's lives. If the justice department reschedules the drug, and other states pardon their prisoners as he's asked them to then the impact will be much much greater.

Also, cases can be brought on a state based jurisdictional level and be dropped cause of this federal act.

That's not true. First, this is not a federal act. An act is an individual law. A federal act is a federal law. This, however, comes through the use of the President's constitutional pardon power, which is only allowed for offenses against the United States. Due to the creation of The District of Columbia, offenses against that code are also included in the President's pardon power.

This absolutely does not apply to any state.

On what basis? In the US, the tenth amendment allows states to enforce their own drug laws regardless of what the federal government says.

Something something Wickard v. Filburn

Biden admin has been making a lot of symbolically valuable half-measure gestures. If substantive change follows on each, he could be the greatest president since FDR. Or, he could lose re-election and we're left with a bunch of impotent symbols that are gradually undone.

I'm still cynical, but slightly more optimistic today.

Any president that doesn't put an entire race of people into camps is better than FDR in my opinion.

Bush II caused much more harm by starting two unjustifiable wars. The victims just weren't American.

Some historians believe FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor ahead of time and allowed it to take place in order to have a pretext to enter the war, essentially starting WW2.

A) This is absolutely a fringe belief, if it is believed at all. Cite a source if you think it could be true.

B) World War II started two years earlier than Pearl Harbor, when Hitler invaded Poland. The idea that FDR started WWII is the most ludicrous, revisionist idea I've ever heard about history.

1. Good number of former navy people seem to believe it like this guy: https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408

2. My point is it's not really a "world" war without the US. Would've probably called it something else.

1. "Former Navy people" are not historians.

2. Adding a continent to a war is not the same as starting it. That's like saying that if the US entered the war in Ukraine, then Biden started WWIII.

The person who started the war is the person who invaded a sovereign neighbor to expand his empire.

> World War II started... when Hitler invaded Poland.

The Chinese might disagree.

> he could be the greatest president

You're good!

This applies to somewhere in the neighborhood of 149 people[1].

[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/bidens-marijuana-pardons-won....

The way I’m reading it, it also applies to people who are not incarcerated but still have felonies on their records.

If so, that’s a whole lot more than 149 people.

6 500, according to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33113859

In 2017, there were 650 000 marijuana arrests across the states, up from the year before.

https://wayofleaf.com/blog/weed-arrests-by-state

That's just in the DC metro area. Nationally it could be higher.

Thanks for taking the time to fill in some blanks. Great links.

My pleasure and thanks for taking the time to thank.

That could be correct, I didn’t read it closely. I think the total number then is still probably quite low. I’m not disparaging the move and think it’s good but adding perspective.

"Highly symbolic" or "game changer" to be reported by newspapers

Moving from victory to victory, burnishing his progressive record. But will midterm voters recognize his overwhelming success?

The President also has pardon powers for those convicted of violating District of Columbia laws and this order also applies to those convicted under DC simple possession laws.

DC laws are, constitutionally speaking, based on lawmaking authority delegated by Congress under their plenary power over territories and subject to any legislative modifications that Congress chooses to make directly from time to time, so it's effectively federal law.

Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution.

The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.

> Congress does indeed delegate authority to the District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act of 1973; however, Congress's authority does not derive from their plenary power over territories because DC isn't a territory. Congress's authority over DC comes from Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution.

Good catch, thanks for the correction.

> The local laws of DC including those forced upon DC by Congress are not however federal law and violations of DC laws are not a violation of federal law. If you violate DC law you are prosecuted in the Superior Court of DC which is part of the DC government. If you violate federal law in DC you are prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is part of the federal court system.

In terms of terminology used every day, you're right. But really, federal authority underlies both of those two legal and judicial systems. It wouldn't violate any separation of powers concern for Congress to amend the rules such that DC local law violations go straight to the US district court, unlike what would be true if DC were a state.

National parks across the country, too.

That's an example of when federal laws apply, yes. (It's not a separate legal system subject to presidential authority.)

You'd be surprised at how many Americans don't understand how Presidential pardons work either.

Pardons are so rare that it's not a good use of brain space for most people. They have been in the news more in recent years due to you know who.

The rules, in general, are simple and it's spelled out in the constitution. Why shouldn't people know it?

> Despite a burst of pardons and commutations in his last hours in office, Donald Trump used his executive clemency power less frequently than nearly every other president since the turn of the 20th century, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Justice Department data.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/22/trump-used-...

I mean... fine, but IMO it's not the number of pardons issued that made this top of mind, but rather the constant controversy around people given pardons, gossip about people who requested pardons, and speculation about the legality of a potential self-pardon.

As opposed to the non-existent controversy over Carter pardoning draft dodgers?

Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning Patty Hearst and members of the Weather Underground?

Or the non-existent controversy over Clinton pardoning his half-brother?

Or the non-existent controversy over Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning?

That last one was a win.

Between Manning and Assange, whom do you think is more deserving of a pardon?

False dichotomy; pardon them both, plus Snowden.

But if what you're fishing for is that Assange did more for the world, was more dis-proportionally persecuted with less legal justification, then yes.

The idea I’m trying to explore is the appropriateness of all the presidential pardon decisions. I agree with you, both deserve pardons.

Listing the pardons by appropriateness is just one component that may help analyze the issue. That’s what I meant by asking the question.

Fewer in number, but much higher in corrupt intent, even compared with the usual bunch of ~sketchy pardons for donors and friends.

Would you mind elaborating on which ones you found sketchy, preferably spanning administrations?

Above all I do not want to argue politics. I am not a supporter of the previous President. Nor am I a supporter of the current. In the past I have voted for Democrats and Republicans but I’m pretty sure it’s protest 3rd party votes for me for the foreseeable future.

Michael Flynn. Scooter Libby. Joe Arpaio. Steve Bannon. Paul Manafort. Roger Stone. etc. etc.

Those all check out with me as sketchy.

Are there more and do you think other administrations have participated in this affront to justice?

I can imagine the Clintons doing some sketchy stuff.

A lot of people don't know basic civics.

IMO our education system should be focused primarily understanding and respecting history, law and civics.

I think the vast majority of Americans have no idea about any of the basics of the American system, which is frankly... scary.

I don't know... Obviously anecdata, but I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that civics and history aren't going to stick any better than any other subject until critical thinking has first been taught.

> I'm from an area notorious for poor education standards, and civics and history were focused on very heavily there.

When you (plural) are making 6-figures a year, living in some high class inner suburb, working for some employer who has tons of money sloshing around, you don't need to be good at playing the game because you can just pay your way.

Poor communities need to actually be good at playing the game in order to be heard.

Can't say everyone or even most world wide are doing a great job necessarily. So I wouldn't take it too hard on oneself. But there must be improvement on the topic. The problem in the U.S. I would say is that lack of knowledge of civics and law can get you in more trouble than other countries -- there is less of the "honest mistake" mentality and approach and more of "we have a hammer and we hammer nails or anything that looks like it." Again on average, and my impression. Also the legal system is way too overcomplicated and inconsistent for my formal mind.

The problem is that because of underinvestment, or the wrong kinds of it, increasingly stringent standards without the advances in productivity or pedagogy means that every year gets closer to teaching to the test.

Why ? Do they teach that in school ? If not why it would be surprising to not know how it works ?

It is surprising that it is not typically taught in schools. One would think an understanding of how our government works and the limits of its powers would be critical for a functional democracy, but 57% of Americans have never even read the constitution nonetheless had any formal education about the context and consequences of its clauses. Of course there will always be more things we want kids to learn than there is time to teach them, but I seriously question what was prioritized over civics.

It's understandable that studying the constitution could be useful, but arguably so would studying the NEC.

In both cases it shouldn't be a requirement; we don't demand studying the NEC before using electricity.

And even those with a very good understanding of the constitution and civics probably don't have a very good handling on the actualities of how everything works, unless perhaps they're a criminal lawyer.

The official original US Constitution is written out on one largish page. The original text, plus footnotes, is 10 pages in https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-.... On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... it's, by my count, 4370 words. That's 12½ minutes of reading.

The amendments are another 15 pages, which is mostly taken up by footnotes about which states ratified them when. On https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_... we have 809 and 2698 words respectively. That's another 10 minutes of reading.

Also, most of that text is unchanged since 01789, and it hasn't changed at all since 01992, when one sentence was added. If you'd spent those 22½ minutes in 01992 you'd still be up to date. And it is in the public domain, so it is easy to obtain.

NFPA's National Electrical Code (I assume that's the one you mean) is over 1000 pages, and a new version comes out each year.

Because it's so short, it doesn't actually say very much. Nearly all of its application is a matter of interpretation spanning literally millions of pages.

That’s the problem. Some parts read quite simply, others require decades of study (and even then the top legal minds in the US can disagree on what the word mean).

Of course they do! The whole point of being a top legal mind is so that you can disagree convincingly about laws so that you can bring about the results you want.

On the other hand, if you're going to actually do DIY work on your house's wiring, it would be prudent to at least have some familiarity with the NEC.

Since we're in a democracy, every election involves everyday citizens adjusting the wiring of our government. Doubly so in states that allow voter-initiated statutes and constitutional amendments via referendum.

If every november everyone in the community got together and rewired eachother's houses, I think it would be very wise to require the NEC be taught to all students.

Of course most people are never going to be arguing cases before the supreme court or writing laws, and those would require far more expertise than anyone needs. At the same time, most people will never be mathematicians but we still have math classes. No one is becoming a master in a subject from primary education, but they should have some basic literacy in the subject and a foundation to build upon.

Schools are optimizing for standardized tests. There's no standardized tests on civics.

What are the tests that people have to take to gain US citizenship?

While people born in the US automatically have citizenship, my personal belief is that people should have to pass the citizenship tests to get the right to vote.

btw, I'm in Australia, and our voting is compulsory (or at least being enrolled and being crossed off as submitting a ballot paper, the vote itself is secret).

I think if we're going to set tests for citizenship for foreigners before they're allowed to become citizens, why shouldn't the same tests apply to locals?

> What are the tests that people have to take to gain US citizenship?

I mean, you're not wrong, but that's not what the majority of schools' funding is staked upon.

There was such a standardized test when I was in high school, for what it's worth. And some states still have them, and some require a passing grade on them to graduate from high school.

Probably should be really. Kids should at least grow up knowing how things are supposed to work so they can fully appreciate how broken things are.

Constitution is fairly removed from practice of criminal law. It is theory that has literally hundreds or interpretations slapped on it.

True, but this will help the tens of thousands of people who have been affected by this that live in Washington, D.C., and provides some precedent for Governors to do the same across the country.

https://twitter.com/EthanSCorey/status/1578126905269780488

Also if they are in prison due to other charges, like those relating to firearms, they may remain in there. Most people are not charged for possession alone.

It's fucked up though that merely possessing weed+firearm is makes you "prohibited possessor" with 10 years in jail when a NAND of the two is legal. Such a person may be considered a violator of weapons and drug laws, even though all they did was own a legal firearm and simple possession of weed.

Fucked up yes, but anyone fucking with drugs that has half a brain knows this, so the ones getting convicted are probably not using them for target practice

Paying a guy to sit in the passenger seat packing heat while you handle the dope and the money or paying another guy to store your product at his house and all the other things you need to do to not catch a "gun stacking" multiplier on your petty dealing charge is a luxury that only successful and established dealers can afford.

You just said it though - only successful and established DEALERs can afford. The problem you are describing is a problem of a drug dealer. A drug dealer with a gun is a criminal that ought to catch a charge. That's exactly my point.

Youtube star FPSRussia was just using them for target practice. He ultimately got convicted of possession of hash oil (with intent, seemingly solely because he shared it with his girlfriend). While he plead down to the possesion w/ intent it's my understanding the original charges included prohibited possessor. I don't think he'll get the pardon either since he got a distribution charge for toking with the GF.

Yeah there are definitely scenarios where its some real bullshit, I agree. And it's fucked up that a persons decision to smoke weed essentially removes their second amendment rights. But its still a decision that you can make, you know. It's not like you HAVE to have a gun. (idk the specifics of the FPSrussia case so won't comment on that)

> The vast majority of people arrested for marijuana possession are not charged Federally.

I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession occurred at national parks and monuments. But still even if violations were widespread, arrests and convictions probably weren't. You would need a really bored D.A., and I would assume they're usually just as busy as most other attorneys.

> I would expect most of the Federal charges of simple possession occurred at national parks and monuments

Borders?

There were probably many smuggling cases that pled down to simple possession for various reasons. And now pardoned.

feels like the current POTUS is either signaling his parties future legislative priority at best, pandering for november votes, or performing the legislative equivalent of 'dnf clean all' as these low level offenders are becoming increasingly burdensome and expensive to house and feed during a recession.

One man's pandering for votes is another man's fulfilling of electoral mandate and promises.

A lot (most?) of what all politicians ever do is pandering for votes.

Even if it's pandering for midterms it's refreshing to get some bones thrown at us.

It's all three. Biden is a consummate politician.

From talking with friends, Biden isn't terribly popular with the segment of Democratic voters for which marijuana and student loans are top priority. He managed to make progress on the student loans recently, but efforts on drug reform have stalled.

Could it be because he used to be involved with war on drugs?

> Could it be because he used to be involved with war on drugs?

That's true of pretty much every politician who's been in office for more than, say, fifteen years.

Save a few libertarians here and there.

There was no shortage of left leaning politicians in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc that were harping on the whole "criminalization is making drug problems worse" thing. Prior to the homogenization of politicians rhetoric in the 2010s I'd say it was a solid 30% of politicians on the left and 20% on the right.

So excuse me for being a little cynical when one of the guys from the "no we'll just use the state jackboot to solve all the problems" camp is pardoning people.

You guys talk about Biden like he's running the show. You've seen him lately, right?

Yes, I fondly recall his speech he gave calling out the MAGA republicans as a danger to the country and right wing media losing their mind over the “fascist” speech.

Is the guy a doddering old fool or a dangerous demagogue? It can’t be both simultaneously

...which he apparently forgot all about the very next day. I don't know what they had him juiced up with (maybe Pervitin, appropriately?) but that's the most coherent I've ever seen him before or since.

The simple solution to the contradiction you propose is: He is a doddering old fool, who is controlled by dangerous demagogues. (And actually, this might describe his predecessor as well.)

But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate when they occasionally do something good (regardless of their motivations), and this is one of those times.

Well we’re have to agree to disagree then. I also don’t think trump was being controlled. These guys are not always on, but you can see that both of them are making decisions and those decisions taking place.

There’s no drug in the world that makes someone go from doddering to able to give long speeches and stay on point.

Still, it will set an example for the blue states to follow. That's something at least. Red states would probably be less likely to do this just based on where the example is coming from. It's progress of a sort in undoing a grave injustice.

Most of the blue states are legal or decriminalized at this point.

What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for clemency/pardons when legalization happens.

I don't care about marijuana, it's never been very interesting to me, but it's absurd the amount of human capital that's gone into stopping it and sigmatizing its use in this country.

> What's odd is that there hasn't been a push for clemency/pardons when legalization happens.

There absolutely has been though.

California: https://www.pubdef.ocgov.com/programs/dismissal-and-re-sente...

Washington: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/washington-gov-i...

Colorado: https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/6986-governor-polis-g...

etc. etc.

"when legalization happens" is perhaps the part you missed about my comment.

These are things that have happened decades after legalization!

The amount of money spent for police and prison and the number of wasted human years (while in prison) is staggering. At the same time, I wish there was better data on the number of people who have permanent mental illness due to drug use. Is there much causation or just correlation?

I didn't know this, and I am American thanks for the clarification.

A question meant with the best intent: why didn't you know this?

For me, this kind of thing was pretty well covered in high school, and my high school was far from excellent.

I also didn't really know. High school was thirty years ago, at my school civics was an optional class taught by the football coach, and when learning about how the government works the details of pardons aren't terribly important.

I'm sure I read some textbook that said the president can pardon Federal crimes, but my test was something along the lines of "what powers does the executive branch have" and "the pardon" was a good enough answer.

From a foreign news outlet, ironically, for our American readers:

> Mr Biden, a Democrat, said he will call upon all state governors to issue their own marijuana pardons.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63166964

We had the same reporting up here in Canada. The president doesn't have a power to pardon state offenders but he urged state governors to mirror the change alongside the formal pardon for federal prisoners.

It does set the stage for states to issue similar pardons. Although red states are unlikely to do so, I believe it will have second-order effects that do pressure red states.

A large part of The War On Drugs was the top-down messaging villainizing possession and use of cannabis, and that same power is now being used in the opposite direction to some extent. Combine that with an aging baby boomer generation, and you have youth growing up in red states today who are much less likely to believe that folks should be put in jail for possession.

Next the purple states will adopt similar language and policy, then the idea of criminalization well become an outside/extremist/fringe policy and – my prediction – finally within a decade or two even many red states will be decriminalizing cannabis as well.

True, but also traditionally Federal marijuana stance has been much more strict than most of the states. I think this action may signal that it is changing.

And it's still illegal going forward, which means it's still valid reason for civil asset forfeiture, something the feds are major players in, either directly or through "sharing" with the states.

I have a friend in SV who got arrested for possession in one the national parks around there. Apparently it's a federal charge and hence he is still struggling to get citizenship.

Biden also limited the scope to possession. Serving 30 years for selling an ounce of weed? Biden doesn’t care.

The list of cannabis offenders imprisoned federally is 40k people. Biden pardoned 6.5k most of whom are not currently serving time.

"Just noting for non-American readers."

I'm not in the US and I am aware of the Fed/States law/divide but that's not the most important issue for those of us outside the US.

The truly significantly point about Biden's announcement is that the attitude to marijuana use will almost certainly change worldwide. I don't expect the world to go pot-crazy overnight or such, but as I see it it's a very noticeable (albeit small) crack in the way drug use is policed and this will be echoed to varying degrees worldwide.

The fact that the US president has done this is an indicator to the world that the all-or-nothing/black and white approach to policing drug use is not the correct approach and that it ought to be more nuanced and targeted. And, in my opinion, that's to be welcomed.

It goes without saying there are major problems with drug use and I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach to their use—far from it. However, what Biden's announcement shows the world that not all drugs have equally bad outcomes for users and that this should be reflected generally by grading drug laws more appropriately.

With Biden's words, hopefully drug use will become less of a criminal activity and more of a medical one.

FYI, I'm not a marijuana user—well anyway not a recent one, haven't used it since my student days quite some decades ago.

>Biden can't do anything about the State level charges most people are charged with

nothing whatsoever, other than you know, shuffling https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html

It's a pretty empty gesture.

Not really true. This action amounts to Biden doing something about state-level charges as well. He explicitly encouraged states to follow suit. He also announced that he's reviewing the absurd Schedule 1 designation for marijuana, which is also a huge deal. And today's action moves us a lot closer to real national legalization.

The concern here is that if you are charged federally with marijuana possession, you probably weren't a light user. You were probably a drug trafficker who was associated with gangs and much stronger drugs, and I'm not sure I want those people back on the streets any sooner then necessary

Reply on news.ycombinator.com