No, I’m expressing the nuance that I wouldn’t support immediate release of everyone whose crimes include but explicitly are not limited to Weed. I’m just expressing nuance. I think people with multiple crimes should be considered for commuting sentences or parole but I don’t think releasing them all as a blanket statement is uh… sane.
That’s not Tone. That’s having a different stance altogether, unless they’re simply failing to convey their stance.
The quoted section in particular is referring to people with cannabis related offenses. It doesn’t say anything about releasing people with more serious offenses in addition to cannabis related offenses.
That isn’t nuance it’s just putting words in their mouth.
If you release every single person with cannabis related offenses then you’re going to release people with many other crimes as well. Rather than putting words in their mouth I’m pointing out their stance is subjectively bad with the low number of words they are using.
I have to be critical of this because the world we live in absolutely has people who would release every single person, unironically.
If you release every single person with cannabis related offense
the president’s clemency actions did not address the approximately 3,000 individuals serving time in federal prisons for cannabis related offenses.
These are the not the same statements. No one is arguing for releasing every single person with cannabis offenses no matter what other crime they also committed. These are people with cannabis related offenses and nothing else.
It’s clear because they specified a number, 3000. Your argument isn’t being critical because it doesn’t address what they actually wrote.
The Forbes Article that you linked me to 7 comments up the chain says “He can extend clemency to every person still serving time for federal cannabis offenses, many of whom have already spent decades behind bars.”
They might have a good point if they mean what is implied and not what they are explicitly saying.
“While cannabis is now legal in Minnesota and many states across America, thousands remain behind bars in federal prisons for the same substance – a reminder of the work still ahead,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, said on the Capitol steps on November 20. “President Biden still has time to build on his initial pardons and take decisive action. He can extend clemency to every person still serving time for federal cannabis offenses, many of whom have already spent decades behind bars. In Minnesota, we’ve shown that cannabis legalization and expungement can move hand in hand. Now it’s time for federal action to match this progress.”
That’s a quote from representative Ilhan Omar, not LPP. Regardless, it’s evident that she meant people who are in federal prison for cannabis offenses only. She was not referring to the intersection of people with cannabis offenses and every other possible crime.
The phrases “While cannabis is now legal in Minnesota and many states across America, thousands remain behind bars in federal prisons for the same substance” and “cannabis legalization and expungement can move hand in hand” make it clear what she meant.
No one can seriously look at this and reasonably conclude she meant something like serial killers who were also convicted of cannabis offenses. That’s not a position anyone is taking. That’s a bizarre interpretation given what was explicitly said.
No, I’m expressing the nuance that I wouldn’t support immediate release of everyone whose crimes include but explicitly are not limited to Weed. I’m just expressing nuance. I think people with multiple crimes should be considered for commuting sentences or parole but I don’t think releasing them all as a blanket statement is uh… sane.
That’s not Tone. That’s having a different stance altogether, unless they’re simply failing to convey their stance.
The quoted section in particular is referring to people with cannabis related offenses. It doesn’t say anything about releasing people with more serious offenses in addition to cannabis related offenses.
That isn’t nuance it’s just putting words in their mouth.
If you release every single person with cannabis related offenses then you’re going to release people with many other crimes as well. Rather than putting words in their mouth I’m pointing out their stance is subjectively bad with the low number of words they are using.
I have to be critical of this because the world we live in absolutely has people who would release every single person, unironically.
These are the not the same statements. No one is arguing for releasing every single person with cannabis offenses no matter what other crime they also committed. These are people with cannabis related offenses and nothing else.
It’s clear because they specified a number, 3000. Your argument isn’t being critical because it doesn’t address what they actually wrote.
The Forbes Article that you linked me to 7 comments up the chain says “He can extend clemency to every person still serving time for federal cannabis offenses, many of whom have already spent decades behind bars.”
They might have a good point if they mean what is implied and not what they are explicitly saying.
That’s a quote from representative Ilhan Omar, not LPP. Regardless, it’s evident that she meant people who are in federal prison for cannabis offenses only. She was not referring to the intersection of people with cannabis offenses and every other possible crime.
The phrases “While cannabis is now legal in Minnesota and many states across America, thousands remain behind bars in federal prisons for the same substance” and “cannabis legalization and expungement can move hand in hand” make it clear what she meant.
No one can seriously look at this and reasonably conclude she meant something like serial killers who were also convicted of cannabis offenses. That’s not a position anyone is taking. That’s a bizarre interpretation given what was explicitly said.