This comes off as election year pandering but it also probably shouldn't be a crime to begin with.

I don't use that particular drug, have never used it and have no desire to use it but I'm fine with it being legal as long as there are some restrictions on where people can use it in public. I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to smoke tobacco and something similar should be done for marijuana. Also, minors should not be allowed to use it just as they aren't allowed to use tobacco or alcohol.

> This comes off as election year pandering but it also probably shouldn't be a crime to begin with.

Normally I would agree, though this has been a process, not just this quick vote grab.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/06/bide...

Edit to add: The timing of the process is probably for the benefit of votes and the like.

> I don't use that particular drug, have never used it and have no desire to use it but I'm fine with it being legal as long as there are some restrictions on where people can use it in public. I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to smoke tobacco and something similar should be done for marijuana. Also, minors should not be allowed to use it just as they aren't allowed to use tobacco or alcohol.

I'm fairly certain that basically all places that have decriminalized/legalized marijuana have such regulations in place.

Downtowns wrecked by unhoused heroin and fentanyl addicts don't seem to have such regulations in place for that substance, so I wouldn't personally assume that's the case for cannabis, or alcohol for that matter.

Then your assumption would be wrong. There are of course regulations against it. Whether they're effectively enforced is another question (and a question that can be asked by all regulations).

> I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places.

If someone can be high in public without repercussion, bdw5204's desire not to smell it in public will unfortunately go unsatisfied.

To me, this reply insinuates that we shouldnt give Biden credit for doing this - am I reading into this too much?

> I don't want to have to smell that unpleasant plant on the streets or public transit or other public places.

I'd like that. Second-hand marijuana gives me a headache, often before I even consciously notice the smell (so I can't hold my breath or walk away).

That said, having non-smoking areas means we need to have dedicated smoking areas, otherwise it's just an indirect ban on smokers. Habit-forming drugs are hard to kick, so – at least until we have a readily-available way for people to take them without polluting the atmosphere – we need common, dedicated areas where people can take them, accessible within a few minutes' walk of most public spaces and workplaces.

That's really interesting, what would be the mechanism of action for a headache induced by consciously imperceptible levels of marijuana in the air? I see this comment often so I believe you, I just haven't been able to conceive of how that would actually work but such a strong physiological reaction from such a tiny amount is really interesting.

What happens if you are exposed to higher concentrations, is it a medical emergency of some kind? And what specifically happens? I'd love to learn more.

It's not consciously-imperceptible levels, it's just not a particularly salient sensation. I notice the headache, then I notice the smell, and my brain helpfully informs me "hey, you've been smelling that for, like, the past 30 seconds". If the air's really cold, sometimes I don't smell anything until I warm up the air I'm breathing – but that's not imperceptible levels, that's just my nose not working in the cold. If I'm paying attention to what I'm smelling, I can stop breathing before I get a lungful, and that usually avoids any negative effects. But there are a lot of smells in a city, and I haven't developed reflexes for marijuana like I have for tobacco.

When I'm exposed to higher concentrations, either I get a stronger headache, or the headache goes away and I get light-headed. I haven't died yet, so I don't think it's a medical emergency of any kind.

I don't even know if it's because of the marijuana. Perhaps the breeze is concentrating a load of (e.g.) carbon monoxide in certain places, and it just happens to also concentrate marijuana scent… but I think it's probably the marijuana. https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/research-news/thre... has some possible explanations:

> The chemicals that activate the smell signals in our brain (called odorants) can sometimes irritate our sinuses. Smoke, perfume and chlorine are some of the most common odorants that cause irritation.

> When [the trigeminal] pathway is stimulated it causes inflammation because it detects a threat that only the immune system can sort out. This, too, can lead to a headache. Chemical smells such as formaldehyde, certain cleaning products and cigarette smoke are all known to act directly on the trigeminal pathway.

Some cannabinoids are known to act on the trigeminal pathway, and I don't usually get headaches from smoke, so it might be that… but I haven't run any experiments, so who knows?

> I don't even know if it's because of the marijuana. Perhaps the breeze is concentrating a load of carbon monoxide in certain places, and it just happens to also concentrate marijuana scent… but I think it's probably the marijuana.

Could also be hypochondria. Hypochondria isn't a personal choice and there is no blame in that suggestion.

We don't get to choose what our brains do sometimes. "It's all in your head" is a dismissive explanation, except that we all have to live in our own heads, so if something is "in our head", it's a freaking big deal because we have to live with it rattling around in there. For someone with an mental disorder, the idea that wifi will cause cancer could force them to live on the fringes of society.

I have this reaction, but only when returning after a hard run. No exercise? Totally fine. Smells like skunky basil. If I've been on a run? Nausea, headache and it smells awful.

Frankly I think Japanese smokers have more freedom because there are designated places to do so. I walked into a Nissan dealership in Ginza just to use the smoking room and was invited to sit inside a special edition GT-R on the way out.

When I'm not using those spaces and smoke on the street, I get stopped and frisked (never happens to me in NYC tho as someone who is melanated).

Marijuana criminalization was one of the dumber things about the world I was born into. Liberalization of these laws is one of the things I can point to in my life as being noticable progress. The fact that the state continues to destroy lives over simple drug possession is an ongoing tragedy.

I wonder if this has implications on those applying for federal positions with extensive background checks where even one-time use would have been a dealbreaker.

That's an interesting hypothesis and seems to make sense. I was also wondering why he would pardon people who were never arrested or detained. Felt a bit dystopian thought crime-esque, but there's likely some sort of logic behind it.

> I was also wondering why he would pardon people who were never arrested or detained. Felt a bit dystopian thought crime-esque, but there's likely some sort of logic behind it.

The logic is preventing you from being arrested tomorrow for your use last month. If he only pardoned those who were already arrested and/or convicted there would be nothing stopping the prosecution of people who just hadn't yet been arrested.

It could also have something to do with military recruitment and passing background checks in advance of a possible recruitment surge for conflict between US and China.

I don't think these positions exist anymore. The CIA says no use 3 months before employment, FBI, Secret Service, NSA are 1 year.

Interesting. A good idea, not worth getting a record over.

I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing.

If somebody guilty of a bigger crime is actually released because of this, the AG's prosecutor bears the guilt: it's still the just thing to do.

> Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing.

As a counterpoint this may make the justice system pursue larger charges going forward.

If a street level dealer was caught, and they offered a plea deal of possession to save time, trial, legal expenses, etc that person will now be pardoned.

If the DoJ doesn't like this outcome it could lead to them going after everyone for full charges and basically end plea deals.

Good. Lots of innocent people are pressured into bullshit plea deals under the threat that they'll be charged for some bigger chrime that the prosecutor doesn't actually have the evidence to prove.

If the prosecution has the goods, make them prove it. Otherwise they shouldn't be able to use empty threats to brow beat someone into a guilty plea.

> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

I'm aware of cases like this that happened a long time ago. Domestic abusers who got put away on drug charges because it was easier than the alternatives. I still think this pardon is an overall good thing.

Agreed.

> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried.

If the charge was important and also provable, it should have been charged. And in many cases, the statute of limitation would prevent charging the conduct now, anyway.

So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger. Yes that is one of the many unintended side effects we will see.

> So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger.

Probably not; federally, simple possession of marijuana carries a maximum 1 year sentence and had 145 convictions in 2021, with zero prisoners as of January 2022 in federal custody solely on simple possession of marijuana charges.

The impact of this is almost entirely on clearing past records, not releasing current offenders.

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...

Thanks for clarifying that!

> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

Any such person should unquestionably be released.

Easy for us to say, far away from the domestic abuse or child endangerment issue. Armchair justice is so much simpler than the real thing.

I hope you're not suggesting we lock people up who have not been convicted of a crime.

I just imagine that the system is not black and white. And again, armchair logic is fine from where we're sitting. Folks may also be harmed by this.

I suggest there will be unintended consequences.

Sure. All actions have consequences. Folks may even benefit.

Out of all the potential consequences, you're focused on this one. I'm just trying to understand your intent. Are you suggesting alternatives?

The consequence of this decision is that people will be released if their convictions are for these certain crimes. That consequence is absolutely intended.

> The implication of Biden's pardon promises to have significant implications

Sort of a second-order implication, then. In any case, I hope the consequences will be consequential for all those involved.

> The implication of Biden's pardon promises to have significant implications

Why does this sound like a school essay written to pad word count.

he's really trying hard to get back up in the polls

Strangely a bunch of comments like this on this thread.

Politicians doing things to get re-elected is generally how democracy works.

My point is it looks desperate, if he cared about this he would have legalized it nation wide. When he's reaching for the low hanging fruit that's no show of strength

How exactly would he have "legalized" it? Maybe he should have encouraged the HHS to reschedule cannabis sometime last year. I wonder if he did that?

And off the ground, am I rite.

Elections are coming ...

Note: This only applies to certain Federal crimes, and in the District of Columbia. Not the states.

It's as if the federal government is only in charge of the federal government!

“Marijuana users who want to take part in Biden's program will have to follow an application process set by the Department of Justice to receive a certificate confirming that they were pardoned under the president's broader order if they need to provide proof of clemency for employment or housing applications.”

Lovingly requires you to register to receive your certificate. Yeah, no thanks.

It's sad how people predisposed to hate him write it off as "election year pandering" when if he didn't do it he wouldn't be "doing what his constituents want".

And on other social media you can see how juvenile people are when they say "why don't you just legalize it".

More discussion over on the official Whitehouse post here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38736919