President Biden Pardons Federal Marijuana Offensives
Taking a political layup that has been there for multiple presidents before him, President Biden announced his intention to pardon simple federal possession offenses and is “encouraging” governors to do the same.
President Biden announced major steps toward decriminalizing marijuana possession Thursday, issuing mass pardons for anyone convicted of federal crimes for simply possessing the drug, and urging governors to do the same.
He also called for his administration to expedite a review of whether marijuana should continue to be listed as a Schedule I substance.
“Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs,” Biden said in a video statement announcing the actions. “I’m announcing a pardon of all prior federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana. There are thousands of people who were convicted for marijuana possession who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My pardon will remove this burden on them.”
Thousands of Americans would be impacted by the actions, according to a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
It is a big freakin deal.Report
Long overdue but good for Dank Biden. Though having to listen to decades old Reefer Madness claptrap from R’s will be tiring. Of course i could get massively stoned to read those.Report
Okay. How many people are currently in prison for simple possession?
I am assuming that if someone is in prison for punching a Domino’s driver for forgetting garlic knots and simple possession that the stuff involving Domino’s still stands (even if the possession is now pardoned).
This strikes me as a very important necessary first step on the way to the very important sufficient step… but I’m also wondering how much it accomplishes given my suspicion that there aren’t a whole lot of simple possession bust people still sitting in federal cells in 2022.
Do we have numbers for this?Report
Fed simple possession arrests are not that common. A few thousand i think. Fed cases are usually big deals and not aimed at Chet smoking a bowl by the Grand Canyon. I’m hoping D govs will jump on this in states where they can. Not expecting it, but hopeful. The rescheduling is the bigger deal and for more people but is getting less attention which is exactly how things work sadly.Report
“A senior administration official said that over 6,500 U.S. citizens from 1992 — 2021 were convicted of simple possession of marijuana under federal law, and thousands more were convicted under a Washington, D.C. code. There are currently no individuals in federal prison solely for simple possession of marijuana and most marijuana possession convictions occur at the state level, the official said.”
“In a call with reporters, a senior administration official said that thousands of people with prior convictions for marijuana possession are denied housing, employment or educational opportunities as a result. “This pardon will help relieve those collateral consequences,” they said.”
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-pardon-prior-federal-offenses-simple-marijuana-possession-rcna51088Report
I forgot about how this impacts DC!
Yes. This is absolutely *HUGE* for DC.Report
According to this dashboard, only one of the 309 people in federal prison for simple possession of any drug was sentenced in DC. Back in 2015, there were 2. Apparently simple possession of any drug has been de facto decriminalized in DC for a while now.
I’m not sure how they decide how to classify prisoners convicted of multiple crimes. It’s possible that drug possession just acts as a sentence enhancer for other crimes.Report
The administration’s estimate is that this affects 6,500. That includes people who will have the convictions removed from their records but are not currently in prison (at least not for those charges). As for how many are actually in prison on simple marijuana possession charges right now? Not sure. I would think almost certainly fewer than a thousand, maybe fewer than a hundred.
Just looked it up, and this story claims fewer than 150.Report
Well, something that helps 150 people is something that helps 150 people.
But this low-hanging fruit has been getting heavier to the point that it was bending the branch. I’m glad that *SOMEBODY* finally said “maybe we could grab it?”Report
It still helps the other 6,000+ people, but by removing convictions from their records, rather than by releasing them from prison.Report
Here’s Reason’s take:
Personally, I think that this is, as first steps go, a great first step.
If it is a first step without a second step, then it kind of sucks. Not that this particular move sucks… it doesn’t. It’s just that the second step and third step and fourth step are important.
It kind of reminds me of the debt forgiveness.
This helps a small number of people RIGHT FREAKING NOW.
It doesn’t help people tomorrow. The system that existed yesterday still exists today and, after this change goes through the system, we can start adding up numbers again because the system itself didn’t change.
But I also know that we’re never going to get a second step without having a first step and we’re not going to get a third step without a second.
This is a great first step! Hurray!
Now let’s do the second step.Report
In theory, decriminalization of personal possession without legalizing sales could make things worse. When sales are illegal, the supply is controlled by (often) violent criminals. Increasing demand by telling people that they can buy and use drugs with no worry of legal repercussions increases demand, which drives up prices and encourages more people to get into the illegal drug trade, potentially worsening the associated violent crime.
Does it actually work out that way in practice? I’m not sure.
Meanwhile, those innocent drug users are, in fact, funding and encouraging the horribly destructive drug trade. It’s not their fault that no legitimate suppliers exist, but if they all stopped using drugs, that would probably result in a lot fewer people being killed by Latin American cartels and US gangs.
It’s actually kind of puzzling that we virtually never see calls to boycott illegal drugs. Yes, people advocate abstention on the grounds that drugs are bad for you, but despite drug cartels and gangs being objectively much worse than the vast majority of legitimate corporations and industries that are frequent targets of boycotts, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone call for a drug boycott. Apparently every once in a while, somebody in the UK will call for a cocaine boycott, but that seems to be it.Report
There was indeed a moment of that kind of thing during the halcyon days of the war on terrorism. IIRC it didn’t land very well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/02/04/new-pitch-in-anti-drug-ads-anti-terrorism/2e1a63b7-5e85-4e7a-b418-0e9148268b48/Report
OH YEAH!!!!
If I recall correctly, this resulted in libertarians saying “would legalizing it cut off funding to these terrorists?” and then that turned into “you’re a troll, argue in good faith, what the hell” and so on.
Report
Yes, that did happen. Also some pertinent questions about where the profits go when you put gas in your car.Report
Heh, I remember that. The immediate, and should-have-been-foreseen-by-everyone, response to “Illegal drugs are funding terrorists” was a huge percentage of the population saying “Holy crap, we better legalize drugs right now to stop that!” and the people who created that PR campaign were required to commit ritual suicide. (1)
The drug war has consistently demonstrated that there are some ideas so stupid that you can’t actually create plausible ad campaigns for them. They have trouble fooling _children_.
1) I assume. Anyone in an industry that lets someone else produce this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKXN6Vdr3g0 should pretty much be required to.Report
Wow! I’d never seen that commercial.
Good for her.Report
Here’s why legalization is inevitable (the headline says it all): Colorado And Washington Got More Tax Revenue From Marijuana Than From Alcohol Or Cigarettes In Fiscal Year 2022, Report FindsReport
And there’s a brilliant thread here that gives a pretty plausible explanation for why it took so long to get here:
The general gist of the thread is that “the odor of marijuana” gives the cops a way to avoid messy 4th Amendment issues. Hey, guy had glassy eyes and I detected the distinct odor of marijuana. If that goes away, cops have less reason to be able to search a car, an apartment, or explain why, sure, they broke down the wrong door, but they found a quarter bag. (And lest you think I exaggerate: cops announced finding 10.4 grams of weed in Botham Jean’s apartment. That’s about a third of an ounce.)Report
Yes, people have been pointing out for a while now that you can’t use “thought I smelled pot” as justification for a search if pot is legal.Report
A quarter or so of states leave billions of dollars per year that could provide health care for their poorest citizens on the table. A similar number of states will leave potential marijuana tax revenue on the table.Report
It’s one thing to not hand it out to those bastards.
It’s quite another to not take it from them.Report
It is worth noting the other portion of the presidents statement where he directs the HHS Secretary and DoJ to start looking at decriminalizing it.Report
“Decriminalize” doesn’t cut it. So long as it remains on any schedule under the Controlled Substances Act, it requires a prescription and recreational sales are illegal under federal law. Employers can test for it and impose consequences. Some of those consequences will be totally unjustified, even it they’re doing blood tests. THC is fat soluble, and a large person, with high body fat level and slow metabolism may test higher — despite not being “under the influence” — than a skinny person a couple of hours after imbibing.Report
It’s what he can do without Congress – who are clearly not interested in this bipartisan win.Report
I submit: This might be an issue important enough to tackle in a lame duck session when there is an election far enough away that the outcome won’t be able to be cynically dismissed as posturing for the upcoming election.Report
Nice submission, but unlikely. If the Senate flips, McConnell won’t do anything to give Democrats a late win, and if it doesn’t he’ll still be more interested in obstructing the n legislating.
And not for nothing there’s already legislation on the table from the House:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/23/us-house-representatives-again-passes-marijuana-reform-billReport
Well, if it’s not likely, I suppose I shouldn’t support it in the first place.Report
See I think that’s the wrong attitude – you should support it with your voting patterns and with your activism toward your elected representatives. There is a legislative solution and it’s in the Senate’s hands. We the people can put pressure on them, especially people who live in states who have successfully made marijuana legal and reaped significant tax benefits from the industry.Report
I’ll do more to pressure Bennett and Hickenlooper to support getting marijuana through the senate.Report
The Vice President is on board!
Report
Colorado Springs has an upcoming pair of issues on the ballot.
Issue 300 would legalize retail/recreational marijuana to be sold in Colorado Springs and repeal the prohibition on retail/recreational marijuana from being sold in Colorado Springs
Issue 301 would institute a 5% tax on the newly legalized retail/recreational marijuana
If you want to buy Recreational in Colorado Springs, you’re stuck driving to Manitou Springs (though I have a friend whose sister insists on driving down to Pueblo when she runs out… doesn’t want to be seen, I guess).
The pro folks point out all of the revenue that Colorado Springs is losing by making people drive out to Manitou or Pueblo (and also arguing stuff like “we’re sick of driving out to Manitou!” (not a big deal for people who live downtown, a bigger deal for people who live out off of Powers)).
The anti folks are pointing out that this will increase the homeless problem and also “raise taxes”. (The taxes raised, mind, will be on recreational marijuana.)
The mayor and most of the city council is against 300/301.
I can’t find any polling info.Report
Report