[yyuugg]

Civil asset forfeiture, including by the DEA, is still very much a thing. Having a President end it in airports affects some tiny fraction of the broader problem.

And it only ends it until a future admin un-ends it. I could see both democrats and republicans deciding that they will allow this practice again.

I think it's much more correct to call the practice "paused" until we legislate it away. "Ending" implies a finality we cannot possibly be comfortable with.

[lambda]

Yeah, I agree with you that there are larger problems that still need to be addressed; and that this stop isn't necessarily permanent, but something temporary that might come back once there are more controls in place.

But situations like this are nuanced and complex, and we are in a better position than we were a month ago, due to actions by the Biden administration.

It is easy, especially in cases of such long running problems like civil asset forfeiture, to get cynical and fall into the mentality that there's nothing that can be done. That's not the case. It is possible to improve things, through political and legal processes. Not always as easy as you would like. Frequently slower, and with regressions. But progress is possible, and it's worth keeping track of who makes that progress to inform future voting patterns.

Cynicism can be an effective tool to blunt efforts at reform.

[yyuugg]

I believe it's possible to improve things. I don't think this is an example of a material change. I, personally, find both the incoming and outgoing administrations to be truly repellant.

But where it makes sense to do so, I will give credit.

This just feels like something that can be undone with a few minutes of trump's time. If it stays paused then great. And I'm sure halting the practice even for a few months does material good for people, I just can't give more credit when the Biden admin could do much more to halt it.