Biden's Bad Example

Home | Canna Law Blog | Biden’s Bad Example President Biden's recent announcement of a pardon for federal cannabis offenses has caught the attention of observers abroad. In fact, I was quoted in an article by Brazilian journalist Anita Krepp on the subject. Unfortunately, the example being set by Biden for other countries is, in part, a bad one. To be clear, we are not taking issue with the pardons themselves. Echoing the president's own words, "no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana." If other countries around the world want to release people who are in jail for use or possession offenses, great. The problem has to do with Biden's overall approach to cannabis. In essence, the administration's cannabis policy appears to be a mere adjunct to its criminal justice agenda. When Biden talks about "marijuana reform", he appears to be thinking exclusively (or almost exclusively) of remedying the impacts of the War on Drugs. Viewed in that light, the pardon and its accompanying calls represent a step of some significance. At the same time, within this "reform" there appears to be no place at all for the development of a legal, adult-use cannabis industry. There is also little indication that Biden sees a place for a legal medical cannabis industry, though his call to reconsider the scheduling of marijuana could indicate a desire to open up legal space for medical use. But considering that there was no mention of medical cannabis in Biden's announcement, it is likelier that rescheduling is being seen as a way of softening the legal consequences of cannabis-related activities. American jails could be emptied of all those imprisoned for cannabis offenses, state and federal, and it will not move the needle when it comes to the normalization of cannabis business activities. What is needed from the federal government is, more than anything, for it to make its peace with state-legal activities, some of which arguably have no place being regulated by the feds in the first place. Descheduling marijuana is the logical place to start, followed by the formulation of a commonsense approach to the regulation of cannabis food and drug products. Unfortunately, there is no indication that Biden is moving in the direction of those changes. The administration's play is politically safe. A recent poll found that 65% of Americans strongly or somewhat support pardoning nonviolent cannabis offenders. It is true that the percentage of Americans who think cannabis should be legal is not much lower, at 58%. However, that 58% probably includes respondents who do not think it should be a crime to use cannabis, but may not be ready for a cannabis café next to the nail shop at the nearby strip mall. That 58% probably includes people who are actually in favor of decriminalization, as opposed to legalization. As we have previously said, As calls for legalization grow around the world, support for decriminalization-only has become a popular hedge for politicians, who presumably figure they will come off as having a sensible, middle-of-the-road position. No one should be in jail for smoking marijuana—but neither should there be stores openly selling it. Subject to scrutiny, however, decriminalization-only is a vacuous and counterproductive approach. It does little to reduce cannabis consumption, but deprives society of tax revenues and job creation associated with said consumption. Moreover, a lack of legal avenues to procure cannabis keeps profits in the wrong hands, and prevents the state from engaging in constructive regulation geared to promote health and safety (such as ensuring cannabis products are properly labeled). Biden's announcement may be seen as a step in the path toward decriminalization, but legalization remains off the table. This represents a disservice to cannabis entrepreneurs and a pointless rebuffing of an industry that is creating jobs and increasing tax revenues (and could do much more). Enshrining this approach as U.S. policy is not the right example to set to the rest of the world. Rather than spearheading the development of an industry that it could well lead, the United States will instead be encouraging the adoption of counterproductive approaches to cannabis elsewhere. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Cannabis Advocacy, Federal law and policy Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply