|
Iunnrais posted:There's no real effective difference, as if he CAN'T do the former, all he'd have to do is have an intern do a search on everyone with those conditions. One reason you don't see people released retroactively when sentencing policies change is that it is inevitable some of those released will commit other crimes, some of those crimes will be horrible, and then political opponents will run ads suggesting you should have known and kept all those people in jail.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
I would presume the juiciest pardons come at the end of a president's term after elections have already happened. I'm not holding my breath but I could see him waiting until then.
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
You are delusional and probably part of the problem if you think Obama is going to be releasing already convicted prisoners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Oh, there's a small part of my hindbrain that wonders if Obama will do a last-minute mass pardon or something, but yeah, such is extraordinarily unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Could Obama do a blanket pardon? "Everyone who has served over one year for marijuana possession, with no priors and no violent history, is hereby pardoned." Or does he have to list all individuals by name? Buchanan posted:offering the inhabitants of Utah, who shall submit to the laws, a free pardon for seditions and treasons heretofore by them committed; warning those who shall persist, after notice of this proclamation, in the present rebellion against the United States, that they must expect no further leniency, but look to be rigorously dealt with according to their desserts Johnson posted:I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Leopold Stotch posted:What about all the non violent, low level drug offenders already in federal prison for ridiculous mandatory minimums? "We were wrong but also sorry, no takebacks?" Dick Durbin introduced a bill two weeks ago that, among other things, would allow people sentenced under the now abolished crack laws to petition for shorter sentences http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=be68ad86-a0a4-4486-853f-f8ef7b99e736
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Dick Durbin introduced a bill two weeks ago that, among other things, would allow people sentenced under the now abolished crack laws to petition for shorter sentences http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=be68ad86-a0a4-4486-853f-f8ef7b99e736 They didn't really abolish the crack laws, they just lessened the sentencing disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. Which really makes no drat sense, but it is a bit better than it was. Still, it's nice to see that hopefully those who received particularly harsh sentences will have some relief.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh, there's a small part of my hindbrain that wonders if Obama will do a last-minute mass pardon or something, but yeah, such is extraordinarily unlikely. Yes, he'll take off his mask at the end of the show and his last act as president will be a progressive whirlwind of pardoning the victims of the same policies he spent the past eight years pursuing. Sounds like a great movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You are delusional and probably part of the problem if you think Obama is going to be releasing already convicted prisoners. This. I doubt Obama will even do a single pardon at the twilight hour of his term. I think he intends to leave a legacy cleaner than that 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
While I agree that everybody locked up for non-violent drug offenses should be released, I can just imagine FOX with their CRIME TOLL counter just running the names every day looking for recidivists who maybe escalate their crimes, god forbid a rape or murder occur.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:While I agree that everybody locked up for non-violent drug offenses should be released, I can just imagine FOX with their CRIME TOLL counter just running the names every day looking for recidivists who maybe escalate their crimes, god forbid a rape or murder occur. Yeah, I mean, Fox News would totally capitalize on the moment and make Barack Obama out to be a complete monster. Way too risky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Yeah, I mean, Fox News would totally capitalize on the moment and make Barack Obama out to be a complete monster. Way too risky. God forbid, his life might be ruined! You may as well put him in jail. Forever. For no reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
I'm not saying I care that'll happen personally, because I don't and its obviously a non issue, but there are people who do care because they run a national party.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Those of you curious what happens with drug dog searches, here's is part of the answer. http://www.kgw.com/news/local/New-WSP-drug-dog-doesnt-track-for-pot-219415411.html KGW posted:The State Patrol has three newly trained dogs that do not detect marijuana. They are all stationed in Western Washington, along the I-5 corridor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
 "But if it's legal, how am I supposed to arrest people for it?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:
This was basically something that the WSP trooper union rep wrote in the union quarterly magazine/report/thingy a few months ago. It was as aside that he wrote ("It is especially frustrating when they have marijuana paraphanelia right there in the front seat and tell me that they are going to a friend's place to get high, and there's nothing I can do about it") in response to dozens and dozens of letters from troopers to him asking if they are allowed to smoke weed now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
The country is being primed for full legalization I think. CNN's Sanjay Gupta thing is kinda sort of legitimizing things a lot. And is a long time DUHHH for most people who were interested enough to look past biased studies. It will be legal soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
sweeptheleg5 posted:The country is being primed for full legalization I think. CNN's Sanjay Gupta thing is kinda sort of legitimizing things a lot. And is a long time DUHHH for most people who were interested enough to look past biased studies. It will be legal soon. It won't be legal nationally soon because it's not a national issue now. Politicians don't vote to legalize weed on any level above local and it's a null issue in Congress. There are a number of steps in the national public consciousness that need to be passed before there can be a legislative push.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Today Mayor Bloomberg teaches us that black and hispanic men should be grateful for the racist stop and frisks in NYC:quote:Throughout the trial that just concluded, the judge made it clear she wasn’t at all interested in the crime reductions here or how we achieved them. In fact, nowhere in her 195-page decision does she mention the historic cuts in crime or the number of lives that have been saved. quote:There is just no question that Stop-Question-Frisk has saved countless lives. And we know that most of the lives saved, based on the statistics, have been black and Hispanic young men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Well, they mostly stop and frisk black and hispanic men, and if the cops are able to touch them, they're obviously not ghosts, therefore
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
sweeptheleg5 posted:The country is being primed for full legalization I think. CNN's Sanjay Gupta thing is kinda sort of legitimizing things a lot. And is a long time DUHHH for most people who were interested enough to look past biased studies. It will be legal soon. It is an early, preliminary step. We still have decades to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:It won't be legal nationally soon because it's not a national issue now. Politicians don't vote to legalize weed on any level above local and it's a null issue in Congress. There are a number of steps in the national public consciousness that need to be passed before there can be a legislative push. Warchicken posted:It is an early, preliminary step. We still have decades to go. I think the pieces are starting to fall into place for national-level legalization in a decade or two. The hardcore anti-cannabis movement is essentially done and the public consciousness is beginning to acknowledge that cannabis is pretty harmless overall, and questioning the worth of jailing users. Within the last 5 years we've gone from medical marijuana being a niche issue to totally uncontroversial, and two states voted to legalize in the last election. This issue is swinging around about as quickly as gay marriage, it's just a little trickier to actually get results because licensing marriage was definitively ruled to be a state power long ago. jigokuman posted:Well, they mostly stop and frisk black and hispanic men, and if the cops are able to touch them, they're obviously not ghosts, therefore When I was young I played war games in the woods with my Indian friends. But Indians aren't real. Ghosts are real. I for one am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to break the cycle of ghost violence. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:It is an early, preliminary step. We still have decades to go. No, once the cards start falling on prohibition they tend to start falling fast. For reference see alcohol prohibition once the population grew tired of it, and some states started to legalize. I'd say 2020 is the year we see it happen, if your optimistic sooner. People forget how quickly politics can change sometimes once the right conditions come together. And the right conditions are coming together for the end of marijuana prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Xeom posted:No, once the cards start falling on prohibition they tend to start falling fast. For reference see alcohol prohibition once the population grew tired of it, and some states started to legalize. It will probably take at least as long as gay marriage does in terms of time from the first state legalizing. That happened to be about 10 years ago from this year, so I think we have a bit longer to wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It will probably take at least as long as gay marriage does in terms of time from the first state legalizing. Gay marriage has the religious right to battle with. Making weed legal has nothing to do with scripture (at least for the vast majority of people) so it's far easier to change peoples minds about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Gay marriage has the religious right to battle with. Making weed legal has nothing to do with scripture (at least for the vast majority of people) so it's far easier to change peoples minds about it. Plenty of religious people have qualms about intoxicants (take a guess where the Prohibition movement came from) and there's the interests of the prison industry and anyone associated with the police. It's a very tough issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It will probably take at least as long as gay marriage does in terms of time from the first state legalizing. That's some hilarious metric you've just made up. Completely ignoring national public opinion when the first state legalized gay marriage versus marijuana. Folks marijuana prohibition is going to end a lot quicker than you had ever imagined. The only thing that may take decades to end is the war on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Plenty of religious people have qualms about intoxicants (take a guess where the Prohibition movement came from) and there's the interests of the prison industry and anyone associated with the police. It's a very tough issue. End the practice of letting local departments keep the proceeds from drug forfeitures and see how long their support for prohibition lasts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Xeom posted:No, once the cards start falling on prohibition they tend to start falling fast. For reference see alcohol prohibition once the population grew tired of it, and some states started to legalize. um... but prohibition didn't fall fast? Like the last state to repeal dry laws was Mississippi in 1966, and there are still dozens of dry counties around the country. I mean its easy to forget when the popular narratives focus on Chicago or New York, but prohibition was a very popular institution in many places for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
It took about a day before Seattle police unions were petitioning for the right to smoke without getting shitcanned for moral turpitude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Squalid posted:um... but prohibition didn't fall fast? Like the last state to repeal dry laws was Mississippi in 1966, and there are still dozens of dry counties around the country. I mean its easy to forget when the popular narratives focus on Chicago or New York, but prohibition was a very popular institution in many places for a very long time. The discussion is on the federal level, not backwater county.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Law enforcement can be brought around. There are a lot of potential benefits in it for them. The prison industry though, they can't and won't ever stop fighting it and winning in most places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Xeom posted:
The war on drugs is directly related to how fast prohibition will end. KernelSlanders posted:End the practice of letting local departments keep the proceeds from drug forfeitures and see how long their support for prohibition lasts. That didn't even happen in the legalized states, there's no easy way to do that without going through the legislature which is perilous for other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Xeom posted:The discussion is on the federal level, not backwater county. It seems to me, that prohibition is prohibition, regardless of the legal entity responsible for enforcement, and that federal rescheduling of marijuana isn't going to magically strip state laws from the books. "Backwater" as those states may be, they are still home to millions of Americans, who will likely continue to face prosecution for marijuana possession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
You don't get prosecuted for alcohol possession in dry counties though, do you? I thought you just couldn't buy it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
You can be prosecuted for alcohol possession in every state whether or not you've even consumed any. Just depends how the officer is feeling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:You don't get prosecuted for alcohol possession in dry counties though, do you? I thought you just couldn't buy it. It's not exactly uncommon in a dry county for "undesirables" who legally purchased alcohol in another jurisdiction to be charged or hauled into jail on the basis that the unopened alcohol they had with them was intended for sale in the dry county or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
It actually is a class B misdemeanor to transport or possess alcoholic beverages in a dry county in Texas, though I've never heard of anyone actually being charged with it. As Install Windows mentioned, people do sometimes get charged with intent to sell without a license though, and possessing more than 1 quart of liquor or more than one case of beer is prima facie evidence of intent to sell in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
It'll take less time than you think, even in ultra-conservative states, since the anti-government-regulation crowd is powerful. I never thought Georgia would allow Sunday alcohol sales, but it got passed immediately once the Tea Party got more power than the religious bloc. Pot has pretty bi-partisan (the left and anti-government libertarian) support. I think some forward-thinking politicians could actually gain a lot of support by coming out totally in favor of legalization, without much backlash. As a political issue, I think it's even less controversial than gay marriage and will pick up steam faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
The backlash that matters is from monied interests like tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical, private prison, dea, and police lobbies, all of which will defend prohibition to the absolute last moment and probably still arrest people years after it is over. This poo poo will take god drat forever, mark my words. Nobody gives a gently caress what the people want. All that matters is what the lobbyists want, and who will write campaign checks,
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 08:15
|
|