This is the right direction.
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
567 points (98.6% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3532 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh shit, skipping the hell that is II
Weed.
(This is my 1,000th comment on Lemmy!)
Indeed
This thread demonstrates the idealogical purism and lack of pragmatic political expectations from leftists and progressives. There is literally nothing the Biden admin can do that will ever be enough because it doesn't match some rosy fucking dreamland that only lives in your heads. Descheduling is huge, and signals the end of 100 years of madness with cannabis laws. If you want more, then we need to have more legislative power to implement it.
This is a fucking win, dumbasses.
Under Nixon, yes THAT Nixon, Congress wanted to pass UBI, but Democrats voted it down thinking it didn't offer enough cash...
Even though common sense would tell you that establishing a UBI and raising it would be easier than getting a good paying UBI out of the gate
Yeah celebrate your wins or you may find yourself getting fewer
This is dumb. You’ve got thousands of recreational dispensaries all over the country. States are pretty much operating in violation of federal law already because the federal law is so out of touch. Maybe change the law to be more in line with what states are actually doing?
Do we get to wait another 50 years before they make recreational marijuana legal?
I don’t even smoke weed and I think this is dumb.
*80
What you are suggesting is a legislative action. The nation needs to provide enough legislative power to happen.
The DEA has authority to schedule marijuana, it doesn't require legislation.
Why do we even have a DEA? It’s like putting cops in charge of which medicine you should take. They aren’t the ones who should be making the calls here.
The Enforcement part
You think doctors are going to be arresting addicts on the street? Then they are just cops
Why are we arresting addicts? If you want to arrest people for loitering or blocking the sidewalk, fine. But, arresting them for being an addict is asinine. How about we arrest people for having cancer while we are at it.
Relevance to picking who is enforcing the laws?
"We knew we couldn't arrest people for being pro-civil rights or against the war, but by associating crack with black people and marijuana with hippies, we could disrupt their movements. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did!" - Paraphrasing of the Nixon Administration recounting the "Good ol' days"
associating ~~crack~~ with black people
Crack did not exist in at that time. The CIA didn't flood black communities with it until the 80s.
So that way disabled people know who’s boss
Like seriously as someone unable to function without prescription stimulants that’s how it’s always felt
What does that mean for...my friend...that has to renew their security clearance?
Probably nothing immediately. The biggest advantages of rescheduling are in regard to federal sentencing guidelines and, imo more importantly, federal funding for research. Schedule 1 drugs (which MJ is currently) are defined as having no medical value, so research funding is practically impossible.
view more: next ›