Biden's Pot Pardon: Historic Moment or Midterm Maneuver?
Are These 6500 Pardons a Sign of Hope—Or Just More Political Posturing? Cannabis Attorney Meital & I Break It Down
Tammy: There was some big news that came out October 6th, 2022. President Joe Biden made some really big announcements regarding cannabis.
So today I’m joined by cannabis attorney Meital of @420attorneys to break it all down.
Are we ready to deep dive there?
Meital: Oh my gosh, let's do it. I'm so excited. This is very big news. It's a historic moment.
Tammy: Yeah, absolutely. Let's address the first thing that he talked about—federal pardons.
Meital: So he did two things. There was a proclamation and a statement.
So the proclamation is law. It's effective immediately. It's to grant a pardon to anybody who has committed the act of simple cannabis possession under federal law.
So it applies only to simple possession, federally, and it's a pardon, which means it goes back in time. It doesn't mean that from here forward, it's not a crime.
It means that he pardons those who have done it, either today or anytime in the past, regardless of whether they were convicted or not.
And it applies to simple possession of a small amount of cannabis.
It does not apply to the intent to sell or distribute.
Tammy: Okay, so if anybody has a trafficking or intent to distribute charge from the federal government, those are not included in this.
Meital: Correct.
Tammy: So one of the main questions I keep getting is, what would be a federal crime? How do you get a federal cannabis charge? What does that mean?
Meital: I’ve helped folks who were caught on federal land, like a park.
Or if there's a Park Ranger and they get a ticket for possession of marijuana because it's federal land, technically.
So anything on Federal land that is simple possession of marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, as currently codified at 21 U.S.C. 844.
Tammy: Okay, so national parks, reservations, native lands?
Meital: I don’t really know about Native lands because that's a tricky one.
But I would say parks and some other interaction with a Federal officer that resulted in a conviction of simple possession. And that could mean that you were actually charged with something else.
But the ultimate conviction has to have been simple possession, which might have been pursuant to a plea agreement or whatever the case may be.
They're saying it affects about 6500 Americans, 6500 people.
Also airports, airports could be one.
Tammy: What about places where they receive federal aid like college campuses?
Meital: I don't know. It's really just about who gives you the ticket.
So college campuses, even though they're getting federal aid, they're not the FBI or the DOJ. They are not charged with the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act on that facility.
So that's why it's really interesting because moving on to the statement, to try and broaden this, the truth is that it actually doesn't cover many people and nobody's in jail for it.
Tammy: Okay. So basically, there's not anybody in jail, the number is under 10,000, but roughly 6500.
Meital: In the history of the United States. That's what they have on record. Or currently. Maybe currently.
Tammy: Okay. So, really, this doesn't put a dent into fixing the issue, which is people with cannabis charges who are being barred from public housing, education, loans, opportunities, benefits, sometimes voting, sometimes obtaining a passport, and basically getting legally discriminated against for the rest of their lives. So, 6500 people.
Meital: Which is great for those 6500 people, and I think it's very symbolic. Incredibly symbolic of a desired policy shift.
Tammy: Well, there's that. The second point he brought up—I believe he brought up that state governors need to consider pardoning people who have been arrested or charged with simple possession.
Meital: Yeah, because so few Americans are actually affected by an offense under simple possession on a Federal level. That's usually State sovereignty.
So, the 9th and 10th amendments give the State individual rights to enforcement and police powers. They have general police powers that would usually come into effect for simple possession cases or state run programs, if that makes sense.
So in the state of California, it is Health and Safety Code 11359 and 11357. Those are crimes associated with cannabis.
But simple possession right now is not a crime in California, but in other States it is.
So he's encouraging governors of other states to take steps to pardon simple possession in their State. So it's a call to decriminalization.
Tammy: Ok, got it. And then his third point that he brought up–rescheduling.
Meital: This is the most exciting one to me. He's encouraged the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.
Tammy: This is the exciting one, but also the most nerve wracking one for me because descheduling is absolutely what we need. Take it off drug scheduling altogether.
Consider it a plant and let's regulate it like we would regulate any other psychoactive plant.
The rescheduling part is the part that gives me fear because we're at Schedule I.
We're up there with heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl.
If we place cannabis in Schedule II, or Schedule III, that would take the market away completely. It would wipe it out overnight. The federal government will have taken away states rights.
Meital: Yeah, what's interesting is it creates this, you know, what we saw a little bit with CBD being removed from the schedule. The devil’s in the details, right?
So it's just sort of figuring out if we want to review what's happening with the current schedule. And what the basis for that is. We all know, there's no basis.
You know, I've been working in cannabis law for a very, very long time. And one of the first things we used to file with our filings was the report by the federal government that marijuana had no harmful effect.
And that was, I think, from the 70s? That was the Shafer Report.
So we know that this is a symbolic step forward. And hopefully, they just find that there are no real actual harmful effects of cannabis. But yeah, I think it's a stretch to actually think that they're going to go that far.
Tammy: Right, they probably won't. But if we put it on Schedule II or Schedule III, what happens is everything has to get FDA approval. And that's already a 2-3 year process, right?
So we would be putting in a major backlog for all of the products that are currently on the market. So we don't want that.
And the interesting thing about the Shafer Commission that you mentioned is that they came together, decided that they were going to do research on cannabis.
And they were going to put cannabis on Schedule I temporarily—it was just a firewall.
And they were going to go look at the science and then decide what to do with it. They looked at the science and they found the harms that were there to be minimal. But overall, they also found so many benefits.
And the science said, “Hey, this actually doesn't even need to be on a drug schedule. This is something that people need access to. And we kind of need to rethink how we're looking at this.”
And unfortunately, President Nixon did not care about the science of cannabis, which was supposed to only temporarily be on Schedule I. It stayed there because they made a decision that was not based on science and was instead based on their politics.
Meital: Yeah. It's crazy. It's just crazy to be in this moment where this might actually be happening.
You know, since the beginning of my career, it's been kind of pie in the sky. It's always the question: When's federal legalization? When's federal legalization?
And, you know, with Obama, we saw the Cole Memo and we saw some unwinding. Then we sort of experienced how quickly that can be reversed right through the Trump administration.
And now the pendulum is swinging back through Biden. But does he have the political wherewithal to do it?
Of course, we should talk about the midterm elections and how important it is to go out and vote.
I think there's a senator from Pennsylvania. He's kind of one of the main reasons for all this, apparently he just met with Biden.
Tammy: Yeah. Feldman.
Meital: Yeah. To discuss this issue. And so if we elect those folks during the midterm election, then we could continue to see progress, but we have to keep following up because it's been years since Biden's been elected.
And we're just starting to see a little bit of decriminalization, but it’s sort of like a domino effect.
Tammy: Yeah, for sure. I think it absolutely has a domino effect. That's what happened with legalization. We saw two states legalize and then we started to see everybody else get with the program over time.
Now we're almost at 40 states who have some sort of cannabis legalization for THC.
And honestly, I think if the people put pressure on their governors and explain how that charge that you got 20 years ago is affecting your life, your children's lives, and your spouse’s life. And how it affects your ability to buy a home, further your education, travel, and vote.
You have to put pressure on your politicians. And because you are a tax paying citizen, they have to pay attention to their delegates.
Call. Make an appointment. They have to see you and humanize what you're going through.
Because they may not know. They're dealing with so much. But give them a PowerPoint presentation on why this plant is not harmful.
And then, I don't know, maybe read The New Jim Crow and give them stats on why this is BS and how you're suffering.
Arm yourself with information and then go talk to the people that have the decision-making power.
Meital: That's an excellent point. Because I can think back to several years ago, 2015, when we first started meeting with various council members in the city of Los Angeles and other influential folks about changing cannabis policy.
I have such a vivid recollection of this, of just walking into the official’s office, sitting down, showing them a copy of some of our publications, and meeting with them repeatedly to educate them in order to effect change.
So it really is important. It does work if you're persistent and organized.
Tammy: Yes, it does. They are there to serve you. You just have to make yourself be seen.
And they're genuinely open once you give them information. They have no idea. So maybe their ignorance is playing a part of it.
Meital: Do you think this is a signal of change?
Tammy: I'd like to see the bright side of things, but I know Joe Biden's history when it comes to the Drug War. Just like all politicians, he was harsh.
He also has a child that has had issues with substance abuse, so he's not going to be excited to legalize cannabis.
He comes from a generation in which they were taught the worst of the worst about this. So, I don't have a lot of hope.
I feel like right now there's a gang war, the Bloods being the Republicans and the Crips being the Democrats.
They are at war and we the people are caught in the crossfire and we get used as collateral. That's all we are: Collateral. They actually do not care how I feel.
So I think what Biden is trying to do is gain some popularity.
Meital: That’s pretty much it.
Tammy: The other side is doing the same thing. Neither one of them genuinely cares. They are acting in the best interest of the people that are funding them. And that's just how it is. We're not funding them.
Meital: Yeah, but we are electing them.
Tammy: We are electing them, yeah. I hope that for the sake of our community that this is a wake up call.
We are not pawns. Patients are not pawns. The slap in the face of this big announcement is that in people's minds, hundreds of 1000s of people just got pardoned and it's like, “Haha, just kidding. No, it's not.”
So I’d just like to see some transparency when they're taking these actions.
Look, we know this hardly puts a dent into it. But it's a start and tell me that instead of pretending people aren't going to Google what that number is.
Meital: It's definitely a headline splasher. But I do think it's symbolic. It's the most movement we've seen from the federal government ever—at least when it comes to decriminalization.
I would say the Cole Memo, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, all these little pieces, when you start to string them together, we're getting more and more progress. But there's so much left to be done.
Tammy: So much more. We can get this done in our lifetime.
Meital: Yeah. It's just the devil’s in the details, right?
Tammy: Yes. Oh, my goodness.
Meital: Another interesting thing I saw was the cannabis stocks. They’re soaring right now.
Tammy: Oh, I'm sure. I mean, well, in DC, we have a few different bills that are going before Congress.
So we have the banking act, which is the SAFE Act. I am not a fan because there's no initiative to help the people that were harmed by this. It's literally just to benefit business.
We can say little businesses, too, but the intention is for big businesses.
And then you have the MORE Act. And then you have the one that was also brought forward by Senator Booker. I forget the initials of that one, but they're pretty much the same thing.
One takes the federal government completely out and the other one keeps the federal government in and they get their taxes.
So we're already at high taxes in California, another 10% total. Almost 50% at the retail level for the consumer. It's not doable. I just don't see how it can function. So states might be getting pushed through soon because of this, too.
Meital: TBD. I'll stay tuned.
Tammy: Stay tuned. As we know more, we’ll be here.
And hopefully this announcement has lit a fire under you to start using your voice to create change-–if so, definitely grab my free guide on How to Be a Cannabis Advocate.
It breaks down the steps you can take right now to help us in this fight.
See you next time.
UP YOUR ADVOCACY
With My New Guide on How to Be a Cannabis Advocate
FREE When You Subscribe to Cutie Insider Updates
*The information we provide is not intended to be a substitute for medical treatment. Please consult your medical care provider. Read our full Health Disclaimer.
