Joe Biden and Mary Jane

The president’s marijuana announcement is substantively slight but symbolically significant: A Dispatch Explainer.

By
33
Members of the DC Marijuana Justice community hold a 51 blow-up joint on the National Mall in 2021. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

President Joe Biden announced a three-pronged approach to further decriminalize marijuana possession last week: pardoning prior federal convictions of simple possession, encouraging governors to do the same at the state level, and directing the attorney general and the secretary of Health and Human Services to reconsider how marijuana is scheduled as a controlled substance.

Loosening marijuana laws is broadly popular: According to a 2021 Pew survey, less than 10 percent of Americans want pot to be illegal in all circumstances. But what will Biden’s plan actually accomplish? And where does it fit into the broader policy debate over marijuana reform in the United States?

Federal pardons only go so far.

No one’s getting a get-out-of-jail-free card as a result of Biden’s decision. According to the New York Times, U.S. officials say zero people were serving time in federal prison for simple possession of marijuana last week. But the pardons will affect roughly 6,500 people nationwide and a few thousand more in the District of Columbia by helping to ensure they are not “denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities” as a result of their past convictions, according to the White House announcement.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
33
By
Comments (33)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Mark Grapentine

    While the pardon aspect dominated the headlines, it's the scheduling part that could mean the most. The problem with the "medical" marijuana effort is that it deems marijuana a potential prescription drug w/o the usual analysis of strength, contraindications, etc. Dropping THC and marijuana to Schedule II would go a long way in promoting more research and studies, probably leading to some pretty cool new non-opioid medicines that physicians would be much more comfortable to prescribe.

    Perhaps it's better just to skip right to legalization w/taxation much like alcohol, tbh.

    Collapse
  2. Bennywhite1

    The question I have here is the effect this proclamation (Executive Order) by President Biden will have on service members who have been charged and convicted under Article 112a of the UCMJ.

    The order expressly cited two federal statutes as the basis for conviction which would appear to preclude application to service members. However, the proclamation also discussed conviction under federal law, which clearly includes the UCMJ.

    There is a strong 14th Amendment, Equal Protection clause, argument that this Executive Order should apply to all persons equally. That would include service members convicted of violation of laws involving marijuana possession and use. Thousands of service members have been convicted and discharged for violations of Article 112a. Many, if not most, of these convictions resulted in a Dishonorable Discharge. This prevents those service members from receiving veterans benefits, obtaining security clearances, employment and educational opportunities and many other benefits of citizenship.

    It may be the case that the express language of the Executive Order prevents service members from being included in the pardon, assuming the President has the authority to pardon a class of people rather than individual named people. It is a shame to treat our fellow citizens who made a simple mistake, often in their youthful years, this way.

    Collapse
    1. Hakob90

      The biggest potential difference is criminal vs administrative punishment. Service members discharged solely for use or possession of marijuana were almost assuredly administratively separated, not court martialed and given jail time (i.e. criminally punished). It sounds like this EO is focused on criminal convictions, so I’m not sure it would apply to administrative punishments under the UCMJ.

      It is an interesting question as to whether the President through a more specifically targeted EO would have the ability to change the characterization of service for a class of service members. It would help them by removing a blot from their permanent records as you suggest, though I suppose it would also create a consequence free way of breaking one’s service contract to get out of the military if carried forward as a standing practice.

      Collapse
  3. Rt9413099

    I have always viewed marijuana as a litmus test issue for conservatives when they claim their primary mission is personal freedom.

    Cannabis was a weed that grew in every ditch and gulley of the Southeast United States before the eradication programs of the 1930s. It’s classification as a controlled substance was a result of sustained lobbying by the liquor industry and also had a racial component since marijuana use was much more common among lower economic class African Americans.

    I personally think that sustained marijuana use is a bad idea. It can mess up a life. But I can think of any number of things that fall in that category that are perfectly legal.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I’d like to see marijuana legalized but not this way

    Collapse
  5. Kroneborge

    Frist, we needed a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal at the federal level. I don't recall seeing one that authorized the federal government to do so with other drugs, so the entire federal drug system is unconstitutional.

    Second, I don't believe it's the government's job to try and protect people from themselves. If you want to smoke crack and eat Twinkies all day it's none of my business (as long as I don't have to pay for your healthcare). Same of course applies to other nanny state crimes such as gambling and prostitution.

    Moreover, the drug that causes the most harm is alcohol. Way more than

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2010/11/02/scoring-drugs


    Finally prohibition caused black markets fuel the vast majority of gang violence in our country, and it also a major driver of illegal immigration as people try and flee the failed Latin American states that again OUR failed war on drugs has caused.

    It's been 50 years, we've spent over a trillion dollars, locked up millions of people and anyone can get any drug they want at any time. Even in friken prison.

    It's time to end the failed war on drugs. Legalize, regulate and tax. For the small number of people that have addiction problems they should be treated medically not criminally, unless of course they commit an actual crime (with a victim.)

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Loganrjudy

      I wish I could like this twice.

      Collapse
    2. Genny

      People who smoke crack and eat Twinkies all day don't usually have a guaranteed source of income, so, after awhile, when the need of more Twinkies comes on them, they are highly likely to commit a crime to have those Twinkies. If you look at the statistics, you see that areas where these kinds of addictive behaviors occur in clusters also have high crime rates, making their behavior now your problem (if you live in one of those areas). Other than that, I agree with you.

      Collapse
      1. Kroneborge

        I'm fine with locking those people up if they commit an actual crime. Just like we lock up someone who beats their wife after getting drunk.

        But I think the vast majority of people are able to have a glass of wine, or smoke a joint, or whatever and still lead a productive life.

        In fact it's funny to see how many of the outlawed party drugs (ecstasy, mushrooms, ketamine, acid etc are now showing to have amazing benefits for treating things like PTSD, depression, addiction etc.

        I'll grant that I don't think meth will have any of those benefits. But I don't think we should be locking people up for it either.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Rdpulfer

    I for one am very disappointed this was not the start of a Spider-Man/Joe Biden crossover.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    Whatever the merits and actual impacts of the move by the Biden administration are on this matter, this is shrewd politics in the lead up to the midterms.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Gibby

    This should be a state issue. Period. Always should have been

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      And if the drugs cross state lines then what?

      Collapse
      1. Kroneborge

        Then the states can try and enforce their laws within their own borders.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          If the states don’t cooperate then how would investigations occur?

          Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Wilhelm

    Informative piece. Thanks, Price.

    Collapse
  10. Safety Cone

    That you like the law he makes isn't the point. Just Joe. Making law. Again.

    Collapse
    1. CB76

      I don't understand the objection. The president has unconditional unilateral authority to grant federal pardons, and as mentioned in the article, the executive branch has the authority to reschedule drugs as well. Much as I am in favor of student loan forgiveness, that policy is on much shakier ground. I don't see any procedural issue with what the administration is doing on cannabis at all.

      Collapse
Load More