Connect with us

Published

on

A large majority of Americans70 percent, according to the latest Gallup pollsupport marijuana legalization, and that sentiment is especially strong among younger voters. Gallup found that 79 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds thought marijuana should be legal, compared to 64 percent of adults 55 or older. Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey found that support for legalization was inversely correlated with age. It therefore makes sense that President Joe Biden, who has generated little enthusiasm among Americans of any age group, would try to motivate young voters by touting his support for “marijuana reform.”

The problem for Biden, a longtime drug warrior who is now presenting himself as a reformer, is that his position on marijuana falls far short of repealing federal prohibition, which is what most Americans say they want. His outreach attempts have clumsily obfuscated that point, as illustrated by a video that Vice President Kamala Harris posted on X (formerly Twitter) earlier this month.

“In 2020,” Harris writes in her introduction, “young voters turned out in record numbers to make a difference. Let’s do it again in 2024.” The video highlights “the largest investment in climate action in history,” cancellation of “$132 billion in student debt,” “the first major gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years,” and $7 billion in subsidies for historically black colleges and universities. Then Harris says this: “We changed federal marijuana policy, because nobody should have to go to jail just for smoking weed.” That gloss is misleading in several ways.

Biden has not actually “changed federal marijuana policy.” His two big moves in this area were a mass pardon for people convicted of simple possession under federal law and a directive that may soon result in moving marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a category supposedly reserved for drugs with a high abuse potential and no recognized medical use that cannot be used safely even under a doctor’s supervision, to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

Although Harris, echoing Biden, says “nobody should have to go to jail just for smoking weed,” that rarely happens. Biden’s pardons, which excluded people convicted of growing or distributing marijuana, did not free a single prisoner, and they applied to a tiny fraction of possession cases, which are typically prosecuted under state law.

When he announced the pardons in October 2022, Biden noted that “criminal records for marijuana possession” create “needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities.” But his pardons do not remove those barriers. They do not entail expungement of marijuana records, which is currently not possible under federal law. The certificates that pardon recipients can obtain might carry weight with landlords or employers, but there is no guarantee of that.

Biden’s pardons also did not change federal law, which still treats simple marijuana possession as a misdemeanor punishable by a minimum $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. So people can still be arrested for marijuana possession under federal law, even if they are unlikely to serve time for that offense (which would be true with or without Biden’s pardons). The pardons that Biden announced on October 6, 2022, appliedonly to offenses committed “on or before the date of this proclamation.” When he expanded those pardons on December 22, 2023, that became the new cutoff.

Marijuana use still can disqualify people from federal housing and food assistance. Under immigration law, marijuana convictions are still a bar to admission, legal residence, and citizenship. And cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana, are still prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which applies to any “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance.”

The Biden administration has stubbornly defended that last policy against Second Amendment challenges in federal court, where government lawyers have likened cannabis consumers to dangerous criminalsand “lunatics.” Worse, Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, which increased the maximum prison sentence for marijuana users who own guns from 10 years to 15 years and created a new potential charge against them, which likewise can be punished by up to 15 years behind bars. This is the very same law that Harris touts as “the first major gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years.”

Biden, in short, has neither “decriminalize[d] the use of marijuana” nor “automatically expunge[d] all marijuana use convictions,” as Harris promised on the campaign trail. Both of those steps would require congressional action that Biden has done little to promote.

What about rescheduling? A recent poll commissioned by the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform,Marijuana Moment reports, found that “voters’ impression of the president jumped a net 11 points” after they were informed about “the implications of the rescheduling review that the president initiated.” That included “an 11-point favorability swing among young voters 18-25,” who “will be critical to his reelection bid.”

But let’s not get too excited.Since rescheduling has not happened yet, it is not true that Biden “changed federal marijuana policy” in this area either. And assuming that the Drug Enforcement Administration moves marijuana to Schedule III, as the Department of Health and Human Services recommended last August in response to Biden’s directive, the practical impact would be limited. Rescheduling would facilitate medical research, and it would allow state-licensed marijuana suppliers to deduct business expenses when they file their federal tax returns, which is currently prohibited under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.

Even after rescheduling, however, marijuana businesses would remain criminal enterprises under federal law, which makes it hard for them to obtain financial services and exposes them to the risk of prosecution and asset forfeiture. For businesses that serve recreational consumers, prosecutorial discretion is the only protection against that risk. Cannabis consumers would still have no legally recognized right to own guns, and people who work in the cannabis industry would still face other disabilities under federal law, including life-disrupting consequences for immigrants. Rescheduling would not even make marijuana legally available as a prescription medicine, which would require approval of specific products by the Food and Drug Administration.

In response to overwhelming public support for marijuana legalization, in other words, Biden has made modest moves that leave federal prohibition essentially untouched. While he does not have the authority to unilaterally deschedule marijuana, he cannot even bring himself to support legislation that would do that. Why not?

During the 2020 campaign, Biden echoed seven decades of anti-pot propaganda, saying he was worried that marijuana might be a “gateway” to other, more dangerous drugs. “The truth of the matter is, there’s not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug,” he said. “It’s a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it….It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it’s a gateway drug or not.”

After Biden took office, his press secretary confirmed that his thinking had not changed. “He spoke about this on the campaign,” she said. “He believes in decriminalizing the use of marijuana, but his position has not changed.”

Biden’s rationale for opposing legalization is the same line of argument that Harry J. Anslinger, who headed the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, began pushing in the early 1950s after retreating from his oft-reiterated claim that marijuana causes murderous madness. “Over 50 percent of those oung [heroin] addicts started on marijuana smoking,” hetolda congressional committee in 1951. “They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone.”

Anslinger reiterated that point four years later, when he testified in favor of stricter penalties for marijuana offenses. “While we are discussing marijuana,” a senator said, “the real danger there is that the use of marijuana leads many people eventually to the use of heroin.” Anslingeragreed: “That is the great problem and our great concern about the use of marijuana, that eventually if used over a long period, it does lead to heroin addiction.”

Since then, a great deal of research has examined this issue, which is complicated by confounding variables that make the distinction between correlation and causation elusive. Biden nevertheless thinks “more scientific investigation” will reach a definitive conclusion. If he won’t support legalization until we know for sure whether marijuana is a “gateway drug,” he will never support legalization.

The supposedly reformed drug warrior’s intransigence on this issue poses an obvious challenge for Harris, a belated legalization supporter who is trying to persuade voters who take the same view that Biden is simpatico. Marijuana Moment reports that Harris’ staff recently has been reaching out to marijuana pardon recipients, “seeking assurance that the Justice Department certification process is going smoothly and engaging in broader discussions about cannabis policy reform.”

According to Chris Goldstein, a marijuana activist who was pardoned for a 2014 possession conviction, the vice president’s people get it. Goldstein was “surprised by how up to speed and nice everybody was,” he told Marijuana Moment. “Her staff really did know the difference between rescheduling [and] descheduling, and they were interested to talk about it.”

No doubt Biden also understands the difference. The problem is that he supports the former but not the latter, which he rejects for Anslinger-esque reasons. Cheery campaign videos cannot disguise that reality.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sir Jim Ratcliffe scolds Tories over handling of economy and immigration after Brexit

Published

on

By

Sir Jim Ratcliffe scolds Tories over handling of economy and immigration after Brexit

Billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe has told Sky News that Britain is ready for a change of government after scolding the Conservatives over their handling of the economy and immigration after Brexit.

While insisting his petrochemicals conglomerate INEOS is apolitical, Sir Jim backed Brexit and spent last weekend with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer at Manchester United – the football club he now runs as minority owner.

“I’m sure Keir will do a very good job at running the country – I have no questions about that,” Sir Jim said in an exclusive interview.

“There’s no question that the Conservatives have had a good run,” he added. “I think most of the country probably feels it’s time for a change. And I sort of get that, really.”

Read more: Sir Jim’s mission to succeed at ‘the one challenge the UK has never brought home’

Sir Jim was a prominent backer of leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum but now has issues with how Brexit was delivered by Tory prime ministers.

“Brexit sort of unfortunately didn’t turn out as people anticipated because… Brexit was largely about immigration,” Sir Jim said.

More from Politics

“That was the biggest component of that vote. People were getting fed up with the influx of the city of Southampton coming in every year. I think last year it was two times Southampton.

“I mean, no small island like the UK could cope with vast numbers of people coming into the UK.

“I mean, it just overburdens the National Health Service, the traffic service, the police, everybody.

“The country was designed for 55 or 60 million people and we’ve got 70 million people and all the services break down as a consequence.

“That’s what Brexit was all about and nobody’s implemented that. They just keep talking about it. But nothing’s been done, which is why I think we’ll finish up with the change of government.”

Watch Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s full interview on the Trevor Phillips on Sunday morning programme on Sky News from 8.30am

UK needs to get ‘sharper on the business front’

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has indicated an election is due this year but Monaco-based Sir Jim is unimpressed by the Conservatives’ handling of the economy.

“The UK does need to get a bit sharper on the business front,” he said. “I think the biggest objective for the government is to create growth in the economy.

“There’s two parts of the economy, there’s the services side of the economy and there’s the manufacturing side. And the manufacturing, unfortunately, has been sliding away now for the last 25 years.

“We were very similar in scale to Germany probably 25 years ago.

“But today we’re just a fraction of where Germany is and I think that isn’t healthy for the British economy… particularly when you think the north of England is very manufacturing based, and that talks to things like energy competitiveness, it talks to things like, why do you put an immensely high tax on the North Sea?

“That just disincentivises people from finding hydrocarbons in the North Sea, in energy.

“And what we need is competitive energy. So I mean, in America, in the energy world, in the oil and gas world, they just apply a corporation tax to the oil and gas companies, which is about 30%. And in the UK we’ve got this tax of 75% because we want to kill off the oil and gas companies.

“But if we don’t have competitive energy, we’re not going to have a healthy manufacturing industry. And that just makes no sense to me at all. No.”

‘We’re apolitical’

Asked about INEOS donating to Labour, Sir Jim replied: “We’re apolitical, INEOS.

“We just want a successful manufacturing sector in the UK and we’ve talked to the government about that. It’s pretty clear about our views.”

Sir Jim was keener to talk about the economy and politics than his role at struggling Manchester United, which he bought a 27.7% stake in from the American Glazer family in February – giving him an even higher business profile.

Old Trafford stadium in Manchester. Pic: AP
Image:
Old Trafford stadium in Manchester. Pic: AP

Push for stadium of the North

He is continuing to push for public funds to regenerate Old Trafford and the surrounding areas despite no apparent political support being forthcoming. Sir Keir was hosted at the stadium for a Premier League match last weekend just as heavy rain exposed the fragility of the ageing venue.

“There’s a very good case, in my view, for having a stadium of the North, which would serve the northern part of the country in that arena of football,” Sir Jim said. “If you look at the number of Champions League the North West has won, it’s 10. London has won two.

“And yet everybody from the North has to get down to London to watch a big football match. And there should be one [a large stadium] in the North, in my view.

“But it’s also important for the southern side of Manchester, you know, to regenerate.

“It’s the sort of second capital of the country where the Industrial Revolution began.

“But if you have a regeneration project, you need a nucleus or a regeneration project and having that world-class stadium there, I think would provide the impetus to regenerate that region.”

Continue Reading

World

Oleksandr Usyk defeats Tyson Fury to become heavyweight champion of the world

Published

on

By

Oleksandr Usyk defeats Tyson Fury to become heavyweight champion of the world

Oleksandr Usyk has become the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world after defeating British boxing star Tyson Fury.

The Ukrainian won on a split decision following the match in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Usyk had 115-112 and 114-113 on two cards, while Fury took the other 114-113.

Follow the match as it happened

Fury disputed his loss after the match, saying: “I believe I won that fight. I think he won a few rounds but I won the majority of them.

“His country is at war, so people are siding with the country at war. Make no mistake, I won that fight in my opinion.

In response Usyk said he was “ready for rematch,” but later added: “I don’t think about rematch now, I want to rest.”

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

Fury came under early pressure, with Usyk taking the centre of the ring with an aggressive offensive from the start.

At one point Fury was pushed against the ropes and started laughing as Usyk applied pressure.

The “Gypsy King” looked relaxed as he moved around the ring in the early rounds and picked his shots.

Tyson Fury lunges at Oleksandr Usyk. Pic: PA
Image:
Fury lunges at Usyk. Pic: PA

But after Usyk landed a right hook in the ninth round it looked as if Fury was in serious trouble.

The Ukrainian followed up by unloading freely but somehow the bookmakers’ favourite stayed on his feet and was given a standing 10-second count saved by the bell.

It left Fury struggling through the final three rounds as Usyk chased him around the ring.

Tyson Fury v Oleksandr Usyk. Pic: Action Images via Reuters
Image:
Pic: Action Images via Reuters

The 37-year-old Ukrainian became the first boxer to hold all four major heavyweight belts at the same time and the first undisputed champion in 24 years.

Oleksandr Usyk celebrates with the undisputed heavyweight title belt after his victory
Image:
Oleksandr Usyk celebrates with the undisputed heavyweight title belt. Pic: PA

He’s the best fighter of a generation, there’s nothing left



Jacquie Beltrao

Sports presenter

There’s something very special about Oleksandr Usyk and it’s something all brilliant sports people have: the ability to find that extra bit of grit, to dig a bit deeper, when the battle is slipping away.

It’s exactly the character he showed, coming back at Fury in the 7th and 8th rounds, with some impressive shots, to take the sting out of any Fury resurgence and to swing momentum back his way. And enabling him to go for the kill in that brilliant 9th round. Fury looked stung, he looked confused and he was lucky the referee didn’t stop the fight there and then.

It was amazing that Fury made it to the end. That took courage. But it’s hard to see how he’s going to recover from this. It’s going to hurt. He says he wants to invoke the rematch clause and go again, but will he really want to?

Will Usyk want to? He’s the best fighter of a generation, there’s nothing left to prove. No fighter has ever won the undisputed cruiserweight championship of the world and followed that with the undisputed heavyweight crown. He can take four belts back to Kyiv safe in the knowledge that it’s unlikely anyone will be able to match that achievement anytime soon.

Last night, Fury weighed in at 262lbs (18st 10lbs) – nearly three stone heavier than Usyk, who clocked in at a career heaviest of 223lbs (15st 13lbs).

Fury refused to look at his opponent during a news conference on Thursday, but did not back down at the weigh-in last night, where the pair almost came to blows before being separated by their entourages.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Enter the Cossack warrior and ‘Gypsy King’

Usyk arrived into the ring first, dressed as a Cossack warrior.

Fury entered to songs by Barry White and Bonnie Tyler, with the “Gypsy King” spending several minutes dancing on stage before the song changed to Holding Out For A Hero.

Anthony Joshua watched from the ringside, knowing he could meet the winner early next year.

Continue Reading

World

Fury v Usyk: The fight of the century – as it happened

Published

on

By

Continue Reading

Trending