The problem is that most people charged with crimes related to marijuana were charged at the state level which means that pardoning for those individuals needs to be done at a state level.
Which is going to be an uphill battle to say the least.
This isn’t entirely true. Many states who have legalized Cannabis have expunged convictions off of people’s records automatically, or have created a process where an individual can request it.
Basically what the previous commentor and I are saying is that it has to be state level overturns or expungements unless the federal government can get legislation through because the federal government can’t force the states to do that without legislation.
I see. That isn’t how I interpreted their comment, but I do agree with that assessment. Even if Cannabis was federally legalized I’m not sure that the federal government could force states to retroactively overturn convictions, but I am just making an assumption as that is beyond the scope of my legal knowledge.
Yes. Unless it’s a federal indictment, the states need to clear it. There have been instances where Federal Regulations are wiped out (prohibited), but that is not the case here.
And given our current situation in the House and Senate (not having enough to beat a Republican filabuster) I don’t see federal legislation happening anytime soon.
That’s not entirely true. It’s true that the President can’t decriminalize a drug. If Congress passed this bill, marijuana would be decriminalized and records of marijuana related crimes would be expunged at all levels. The bill is cosponsored by 113 Democrats and Matt Gaetz.
The problem is that most people charged with crimes related to marijuana were charged at the state level which means that pardoning for those individuals needs to be done at a state level.
Which is going to be an uphill battle to say the least.
Hell take the supreme court decision that made anti sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003 for example: decades after that decision people are still trying to get off of sex offender registries. An example from 2022 in regards to Idaho settling a few lawsuits about it.
This is the correct situation. Until Federal legalization happens, you can’t overturn state conviction.
This isn’t entirely true. Many states who have legalized Cannabis have expunged convictions off of people’s records automatically, or have created a process where an individual can request it.
Basically what the previous commentor and I are saying is that it has to be state level overturns or expungements unless the federal government can get legislation through because the federal government can’t force the states to do that without legislation.
I see. That isn’t how I interpreted their comment, but I do agree with that assessment. Even if Cannabis was federally legalized I’m not sure that the federal government could force states to retroactively overturn convictions, but I am just making an assumption as that is beyond the scope of my legal knowledge.
Yes. Unless it’s a federal indictment, the states need to clear it. There have been instances where Federal Regulations are wiped out (prohibited), but that is not the case here.
In those cases, states overturned their own ruling. Bit different.
And given our current situation in the House and Senate (not having enough to beat a Republican filabuster) I don’t see federal legislation happening anytime soon.
The Democrats’ caucus is large enough to do away with the filibuster forever. So naturally, it hasn’t.
If you can get them all to agree to get rid of it
And that’s a big if
Since the party wants perfect lockstep from its voters, that if shouldn’t exist at all.
That’s not entirely true. It’s true that the President can’t decriminalize a drug. If Congress passed this bill, marijuana would be decriminalized and records of marijuana related crimes would be expunged at all levels. The bill is cosponsored by 113 Democrats and Matt Gaetz.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617
That would be cool if it passed for sure, and I hope that something like that (or that itself) does because it’s long overdue