Great move. Both politically and morally,
On the one hand, apparently not many are currently in prison on strictly possession charges. On the other, obviously it will help them build their lives. I wonder how long it will take the pardon to “trickle down” to individual cases? Will someone be released tomorrow?
Where do you see that additional peer reviewed studies are needed? Biden says its going to go under expedited review, which means that the FDA is going to look at the studies already out and see how best to regulate it. It may not be entirely decriminalized at the federal level, but will in all likelihood at least be knocked down to a category that would allow medical use.
Ah okay, that clears things up. I guess I misunderstood the article I read.
Thanks.
Note that I’m not an expert and may be wrong, so if you have a reliable source that says differently I’d like to see it.
“I am holding in my hand a sworn affidavit from Donald J. Trump, indicating that, throughout the entire time he was President, he was high,” Giuliani said.
Hehehe.
I think that the reason we have to pay cash for our marijuana is because currently marijuana is against the Federal laws and drug trafficking allows BATF to seize all the money from the banks. Ain’t nobody wanting that but BATF.
I have read of them stopping armored cars and stealing the money in California but haven’t really been able to confirm the reports. I’m not saying I don’t believe it but I am saying that I won’t claim it as fact.
It’s a very real thing.
They just don’t call it stealing, it’s “civil forfeiture.”
Whether or not it is legal is still an unanswered question, but decriminalizing it at the federal level should make such acts more difficult to justify.
Agreed. The number I Googled up is “149”, but that is 149 too many. This is a good decision.
What about small time “dealers”? I agree that weapons and violence charges should not be dismissed, but I’ve heard that people can be convicted of being a “dealer” based just on the size of their stash.
Does anyone know if this is true? If so, then I think those sentences should also be voided. Although I guess if you had more weed than one person could reasonably consume before it goes bad, then it could reasonably be said that you’re a dealer, but I’m not sure I would trust the record to not inflate the size of the stash. Better to just have a hard and fast rule that unless there is evidence that you were actually selling, or engaged in violence, you get let go and your record cleared.
Better yet, just legalize and tax it. Half way measures are crap, be bold.
Yup, I’m all in favor of legalizing it.
I’d say that as long as all they were dealing was marijuana, then they should have their charges dropped as well. (Personally, I’d throw in psychedelics like mushrooms or LSD in that category too, but that’s not what is being discussed here.)
I don’t know about federal, but in Ohio, generally if you have more than 100 grams (a bit under 4 ounces), that’s considered intent to sell.
I know people who call that stocking up for the weekend.
When I grew up in Ohio that was called stocking up for a dry spell because you never knew when you might find the good stuff again. A 1/4 lb was a standard stock level for me but it would be under 100 grams in a couple of days.
Yes, I believe the term used is “possession with intent to distribute”. The reasoning is that someone carrying drugs for personal use would not be carrying so much unless they are planning to deal it out to others.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/possession-with-the-intent-to-distribute.html
Because a government prosecutor can’t get inside the mind of an accused person, intent has to be proven by the surrounding circumstances. Typically, the intent to distribute, or sell, the controlled substance is assumed when the accused is holding an amount too large to be for only personal use. Some other indications that the possessor intended to sell the drugs include the presence of packaging materials, large amounts of money, and communications from customers.
You can plausibly argue that a person might be carrying a large amount to take home, and they would then consume it over a period of time. I’m not sure how well that works as a defense in court, though.
It doesn’t. It’s even worse if someone wanted a variety for their weekend getaway, and so have multiple bags of different strains. You don’t even need the 100 grams to get intent then.
I’ve also heard anecdotal stories of roaches (as well as stems and seeds) being weighed as part of the bust, and that weight putting people over the “intent” limit.
I was thinking exactly this. Though it’s probably too late for this year’s midterms, even if there are a large number of people who this returns the right to vote to.
I assume they already thought of this, and determined that doing it closer to the midterms means that it’ll be fresher in people’s minds, and they’ll gain more likely voters that way than doing it earlier; possibly because even if it had been done months ago they knew it was already too late for the bureaucracy to let these people get registered to vote, even assuming there was an immediate rush to do so.
Not every state restricts the rights of felons to vote. And there aren’t that many people affected, especially outside of DC. Most drug convictions are state, not federal.
I know this answer. A pardoned felon is eligible to petition the court to restore all or just some of their civil rights. This is not an automatic process, the pardoned felon must initiate it. Once the paperwork is started, it is usually passed around and rubber stamped but all the t’s must be dotted and the i’s all crossed before it is official.
It is conceivable that today’s newly pardoned felons could vote in the mid-terms if they don’t fiddlefart around with the paperwork.