Joe Biden to pardon people incarcerated for cannabis possession.

[tabzer]

Looks like it is direct propaganda.

Why are drugs a federal issue to begin with?

 

[FAST6191]

Will have to read more later, especially as regards limits on what is done, but yeah this just seems like a PR effort for the midterms similar to the gimme oil tour.

Wonder what the effects will be in general and on voting; the legalise weed thing has lost a lot of steam this last few years, the subculture is way down (if we have had any decent stoner films or TV shows in recent years please do share) and I am not sure it is going to get people to turn up that would have stayed home (possibly with a joint, even better if with a friend recently out), moderates/undecided to fall their way and maybe galvanise a few religious types.

That said out is out, even if it is a political stunt.

 

[Viri]

That's why most weed crimes have other shit tact on top of it. If they were going to pardon those crimes also, then it'd be a big deal to me.

Anyone with half a brain can see there is going to be a pretty huge red wave. Like it or hate it, anything negative or positive will be attached to the President, even if he has 0 power over it, be it gas, or inflation. His party is also going to be lumped together with him.

Too bad my city and state has jack asses running on both sides, so neither is worth voting for imo.

As for weed, that shit should have been legal ages ago, and just treated like alcohol. As long as you aren't getting high and driving, I don't give a shit.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Possession of weed never should've been a crime to begin with tbh. Pardoning everyone with a sentence for it is a good move and it should've happened a long time ago.

 

[tabzer]

Possession of weed never should've been a crime to begin with tbh. Pardoning everyone with a sentence for it is a good move and it should've happened a long time ago.

I agree, but here, the issue is that no one is actually being pardoned. It's apparently an empty gesture. I recommend watching what Brand has to say on the subject.

 

[Xzi]

I agree, but here, the issue is that no one is actually being pardoned. It's apparently an empty gesture. I recommend watching what Brand has to say on the subject.

Once again, Brand thinks himself a genius for pointing out the obvious. The bigger news here is that they're beginning the process of rescheduling marijuana on the federal level. Democrats have already largely been on the right side of this issue on the state level, so yes, it's something they can campaign on. Almost as if doing stuff constituents like tends to win you votes. Crazy, right?

Meanwhile, Fox News is basically playing Reefer Madness on a loop in light of Biden's move, despite the fact that plenty of conservatives love to toke. They just can't help themselves, contrarianism is their only remaining play these days.

 

[tabzer]

Once again, Brand thinks himself a genius for pointing out the obvious. The bigger news here is that they're beginning the process of rescheduling marijuana on the federal level. Democrats have already largely been on the right side of this issue on the state level, so yes, it's something they can campaign on. Almost as if doing stuff constituents like tends to win you votes. Crazy, right?

It's obvious that Joe Biden is giving an empty promise for midterms? I agree that it isn't very "genius" to notice that politicians are lying to win votes. The fact that people still tend to vote for those promises is disconcerting, so I think it is worth pushing the point.

 

[UnderJinx]

Wish we had free Cannabis in Denmark

 

[Xzi]

It's obvious that Joe Biden is giving an empty promise for midterms? I agree that it isn't very "genius" to notice that politicians are lying to win votes. The fact that people still tend to vote for those promises is disconcerting, so I think it is worth pushing the point.

There's not much to be done on the federal level other than signal that Democrats are the pro-weed party, and this move accomplishes precisely that. As expected, Republicans took the bait and have positioned themselves as the anti-weed party because of it. It's hardly 4D chess, but it doesn't need to be when your opponent can't even figure out how to play tic-tac-toe properly.

 

[tabzer]

There's not much to be done on the federal level other than signal that Democrats are the pro-weed party, and this move accomplishes precisely that. As expected, Republicans took the bait and have positioned themselves as the anti-weed party because of it. It's hardly 4D chess, but it doesn't need to be when your opponent can't even figure out how to play tic-tac-toe properly.

Any party can signal that they are "the pro-weed party" and it would change nothing. That's the point. IDK what you are going on about republicans, but unless you have something that would suggest that they are pursuing stronger charges for people who don't hurt anybody, then I don't quite understand your "rebuttal", if we can call it that.

In the end, though, it looks like you are capitalizing on the two party system.

 

[Xzi]

Any party can signal that they are "the pro-weed party" and it would change nothing.

They could, but we only have two major political parties in the US, and one of them already called dibs. As stated previously, Democrats have already been on the right side of this issue on the state level. Biden beginning the process of rescheduling marijuana on the federal level signals that he's on the same page.

IDK what you are going on about republicans, but unless you have something that would suggest that they are pursuing stronger charges for people who don't hurt anybody, then I don't quite understand your "rebuttal", if we can call it that.

Pick any major conservative media outlet and they'll be taking the position opposite Biden on this currently. Fox News has been particularly egregious with their "reefer madness" opinion pieces ever since this move was announced.

It's yet another instance of the party leadership being completely disconnected from what their constituents actually want, but sadly that's never stopped Republican voters from falling in line before.

 

[tabzer]

So posturing is important to you, despite the fact that it affects nobody.

 

[Xzi]

So posturing is important to you, despite the fact that it affects nobody.

Rescheduling on the federal level would have a pretty major impact. Success with legalization efforts started with, and continues to be led by Democratic cities and states. So yes, it is important that voters recognize which of the two parties is pro-freedom on this issue, and which is pro-authoritarianism. Otherwise we just end up repeating shit like the failed war on drugs.

 

[Hanafuda]

How many people are in FEDERAL prison for possession only? Almost none. Federal pokey is for dealers, high quantity mules/distributors, weapons+drug offenders. Mere possession cases are left to the States, most of which also aren't prosecuting possession anymore.

If Biden wanted to do it right, he'd worry less about Federal prisoners, who did break the law even if it's a law that should be changed, and more about getting Congress to play ball in descheduling/legalizing.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

So posturing is important to you, despite the fact that it affects nobody.

It seems to me you don't understand the criminal process here. When something becomes rescheduled. It means that the criminal system deems it less dangerous, and the supply of it is changed. It's not 100% posturing (though I don't doubt that there is some posturing behind it)
This also tells other states or influences them to decriminalize it.

 

[FAST6191]

Rescheduling on the federal level would have a pretty major impact. Success with legalization efforts started with, and continues to be led by Democratic cities and states. So yes, it is important that voters recognize which of the two parties is pro-freedom on this issue, and which is pro-authoritarianism. Otherwise we just end up repeating shit like the failed war on drugs.

Where do the libertarians sit in this?

How many people are in FEDERAL prison for possession only? Almost none. Federal pokey is for dealers, high quantity mules/distributors, weapons+drug offenders. Mere possession cases are left to the States, most of which also aren't prosecuting possession anymore.

If Biden wanted to do it right, he'd worry less about Federal prisoners, who did break the law even if it's a law that should be changed, and more about getting Congress to play ball in descheduling/legalizing.

I did ponder that (when Trump was leaving then the traditional pardons were noted as having to be federal only where many popular cases were not and this is where the states rights thing comes in, I should have noted that)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63166964 says "officials" reckon some 6500 (don't know if it is caught flying with or something), whereas the same article quotes Life for Pot (no idea who they are but assuming they are someone of note in this) saying there are no known people in right now for simple possession federally so I guess it is a tacked on affair.

Of course if it was a big deal and such a considered thing then however many hundred days we are in now and 94 executive orders (a surprising amount of restraint there actually by modern standards, though annual average is getting up there) it would surely have been done.

 

[Xzi]

Where do the libertarians sit in this?

Love weed, hate poor people, so it's a wash and they still vote Republican. The ones that do bother voting at all, anyway.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Rescheduling on the federal level would have a pretty major impact. Success with legalization efforts started with, and continues to be led by Democratic cities and states. So yes, it is important that voters recognize which of the two parties is pro-freedom on this issue, and which is pro-authoritarianism. Otherwise we just end up repeating shit like the failed war on drugs.

It is very funny seeing you get accused of caring too much about posturing from a guy who does nothing but posturing LMAO

Post automatically merged: Oct 19, 2022

Where do the libertarians sit in this?

In the back of the short bus with all the other fringe ideologies

 

[sombrerosonic]

In the back of the short bus with all the other fringe ideologies

How short, like a Church Van or a Specal Ed bus

 

[FAST6191]

In the back of the short bus with all the other fringe ideologies

Would have thought one such as yourself might be more reticent to throw around such terms.

As far a fringe then might be a stretch. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2...o-before-they-can-become-a-national-movement/ covers a few numbers. While down compared to previous things (some question whether that was a bad candidate as well) they still represent a sizeable chunk of people (more than likely did things within some states people have heard the names of governors for), with the number expected to go up if something more mathematically amenable to multiple parties than two party/first past the post came into play (assuming polling is to be believed).

Now doubtless it will be the predominantly right wing protest vote* for some years to come (idea of king maker is a hard sell if there are not coalitions) where if the big business or "God and country" types (whatever remains of the latter anyway) are getting a bit too stinky and most of any representations of any level have been resigned to, or marginal state level actors. Baseline beliefs also would be a stretch to call radical, at least if we don't throw out the baseline stated US approach to law making (reality is rather different) as well.

*The US left wing deciding to probably tear itself apart trying to please both the business democrats and democratic socialist types at the same time, though what fraction of the support the libertarian set enjoys from the more left/freedom is cool centrist/swing votes probably thanks them.