politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
But less bad than Fentanyl and other C-IIs, it sounds like.
I'd argue the opposite in a lot of cases, but not all.
I'm more excited about the medical portion of re-classifying.
edit I thought you meant the effects not the effects, so I agree with you.
Not sure that edit is clearing anything up.
I think they meant wrt the federal government.
This would have been a baby step 10 years ago if we're being generous. California's medical marijuana program has been a legal gray area since 1996. So what we can expect federal legalization in another 20 years at this rate? If biden touts this on the campaign trail as an accomplishment I'm going to lose my god damn mind.
This is so long overdue it doesn't deserve celebration, it deserves a "what took so long, this isnt even controversial". If your partner/roommate has been telling you to do the dishes for 20 years and you finally wash some you don't get to turn around and go "look at me, I did 20% of the dishes! aren't I great!"
That roommate analogy hit me right in the feels. Was just thinking yesterday if my roommate even decided to do the trash or any cleaning once soon, i wouldn't even be happy bc it hasn't been done in 3+ years and there's much to make up for. But positive reinforcement and all right? It took long, but we should probably celebrate if it does happen to keep encouraging the process and stoke that flame. Firmly stating "good job so far, but the job's not done yet."
Well, if you want faster change, you should probably stop blaming the lack of progress on the people who are trying to make changes and start blaming the people who block the changes
That's the problem, they're not or barely trying. Descheduling cannabis was within reach of this administration, they chose not to.
It wasn’t within reach; republicans control the house; before midterms, the decisive vote in the senate was Manchin. Democrats introduce bills to legalize weed, but unless they get a big majority those are not passing, and a law from Congress is needed for legalization.
This is the best you can expect until more progressives are voted in.
Changing drug schedules, including removing a drug entirely from the schedules is a process that can be started by the DEA, HHS, public petition or Congress. Congress can just do it, while any of the others it involves DEA and HHS coordinating via the FDA and the DEA making the final call. IOW, literally the same process used to put pot on schedule III could have been used to deschedule pot entirely but they decided on schedule III instead.
This wasn't the act of the legislative branch, this was the act of agencies under the executive branch. Specifically the DEA and FDA which fall under DOJ and DHHS, respectively. Who in turn are headed by the Attorney General and Secretary of HHS, who are appointed by (and ultimately report to) the President.
When people claim that Biden could legalize pot, they aren't talking about something he has to negotiate with Congress and never have been - they've been talking about him ordering his direct appointees to push through the required bureaucratic process to do it themselves. And he eventually did, but only as a half measure.
The DEA has the authority to deschedule a drug without a legislative process.
The biggest thing this does imo is unlock the ability for federal research dollars to study marijuana. There’s some other good thing sure that’ll pay dividends later on as steps towards more harm reduction, but getting off Schedule I IS a big step, if not a complete step to righting the wrongs of the war on (some) drugs.
doesn't this allow banking as well?
It should, yes.
Oh man I can't wait till "Dispensaries" are one of my credit card bonus categories. I'm gonna get so many points...
I mean, that's a pretty slippery slope of logic you're on. We should have addressed anthropogenic climate change in the 70s, but I'm not gonna poo-poo the progress we've made.
I know it sucks that so many things change on a generational scale instead of a year scale, but I was also pretty damn happy about all that institutional inertia slowing down the hard-right turn we took during Trump’s 1st term.
Being happy with too little too late is exactly why climate change is going be as catastrophic as it will be so I really don't get how that makes your case. If biden wanted to he could have pressured the dea to deschedule cannabis completely. He didn't. The DNC hates to lose one of the carrots from their stick.
I'm gonna start working on a time machine, I'll let you know when it works.
If it's not already done, it's too late to try or care.
…it’s a time machine. By its very nature, it’s never too late to try or care, just as long as you’ve built the damn thing.
Unless you were going for more of a
vibe… in which case, yeah, totally possible.
Hence the time machine. Maybe I can change things, earlier.
"I'm going to thank you for doing 1% of what you could and should have instead of demanding to know why you didn't do more"
Our federal government always moves slowly and almost always is decades behind popular opinion, that’s not news. What is news is that someone did something, and that person is Joe Biden. Even if it’s long overdue, and even if it could be better, he acted on the opportunity to make it happen and that deserves credit.
That not how any of this works. Politics requires these kind of changes to move gradually. The states went first and showed that it can work, albeit with severe hampering from the federal government.
Now there seems to be a public support for the next step and this is to gear up to allow dispensaries to become federally legal, have bank accounts and such. The government can then also regulate it in therma of quality and safety.
We all see the damaging nature of alcohol so that comparison is always a bit strange imho.
So we agree this is overdue, we disagree how much of a milestone this step is.
Porn is legal and it is hard to find a payment processor that won’t gouge you.
Puritan bullshit finds a way.
Agreed, Trump almost managed a coup, loaded the Supreme Court, and would fire random officials every other week... Then the democrats pretend the position of the president is powerless.
The establishment left are a joke.
Yeah, I'm really angry that the president didn't "violate the law" to push through marijuana changes faster.
What were you hoping to see them do that they didn't?
What, you mean experience and institutional knowledge are more important than undying loyalty and complacency with unilateral action?
The heritage Foundation's 2025 plan doesn't just go away if Trump loses the election. The Republican party just sit on it, and sit on it, and sit on it, until they are elected again... And they will be elected again.
So the establishment left needs to show some level of radical action to even "return" to centrist popularity.
The President pulling rank on The DEA isn't illegal, and would ensure a full term where the electoral process could be reviewed and further secured, and an a number of Supreme Court justices could be impeached under a stronger set of anti-corruption laws instituted by a democratic effort.
Because sometimes corrective radicalism is called for and warranted... Like when someone almost does a coup.
The "pulling rank" the president is allowed to do, legally, is to order them to do a review of the scheduling. Which is what was done. Which finished, and now it's being rescheduled.
The president doesn't actually have the authority to order the DEA to change the scheduling.
Why are you acting like "appointing a DEA administrator that is pro-legalization" and "make public statements encouraging them to deschedule cannabis" are somehow unthinkable and totalitarian?
.... Because that's what they did? The question was what would you like them to do that they didn't do.
Please give me 1 example of Biden encouraging his DEA to deschedule cannabis because I can't find one and doubt it exists.
*downvoting me won't make that statement exist. 2022 Biden statement on marijuana reform Notable absence: "marijuana should not be on the CSA list of scheduled drugs". Interesting inclusion: 'LSD is a good example of what should be a schedule 1 drug'
It doesn't make you sound more credible when you skip over the part of the order where he directs HHS to review classification, which is all the president can legally order, to instead focus on the other part that isn't actually a federal order.
Ok so where's the example of him calling for descheduling marijuana which you said he did. Or the example that his DEA admin was pro-legalization.
You literally posted it.
That's the extent of what the president can do.
The president can make a public statement saying "I believe that marijuana should not be a scheduled drug".
The president can appoint a DEA administrator who is on record saying that they believe cannabis should not be a scheduled drug.
He did neither of those things, and you claimed that he did. Maybe scroll up if you forgot. Either back the claim or stop replying.
*Jesus christ he cannot read.
Ah, I see. You're determined to be upset, so you won't accept "gave the only legal order towards what you want", and instead want a public statement of "legalize it", and "decriminalize it" isn't enough. Same for the DEA administrator.