1027
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
1027 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1165 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.
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Biden wants to reschedule and decimalize not legalize
that means state by state determination
fifty different "united" states each with differing laws and opinions such as wages, what healthcare you are allowed and how it will be funded, abortion laws, immigration laws, what substances are legal or illegal or otherwise, etcetera
if you are on the wrong side of the state line then you will have less rights then your neighboring state
to go a step further there are already cities in the US where half the city has either medical use and or recreational use and the other half is strictly illegal or a combination there of such as half medical and half medical/ recreational and yes some tax and revenue the government receives from the cannabis industry goes towards prosecution of cannabis users in illegal places
Biden is only doing this for votes and knows the average voter will not know otherwise and we the people deserve better than a sham
These kind of laws and policies lessens consumer protections regarding cannabis while bolstering corporate cannabis and muddying the water further making the dream of legalization even more of a pipe dream
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
Unfortunately, the President has no role in the scheduling of substances. The Supreme Court has already made it clear the president cannot do this by executive order, and Congress gave the power to schedule dugs to the DEA.
The DEA takes the recommendation from HHS. HHS basically then hands the reigns over to the FDA, who then evaluates the drug, and provides evidence to the HHS based on testing and scientific research. HHS then takes that information and creates a scheduling recommendation for the DEA.
Then, the DEA takes that recommendation, does its own research and has a public comment period, and THEN it can reschedule a drug.
Since Congress gave the president no direct role in this process, all the administration can do is appoint officials they think will be supportive of their decisions, and then make their opinions known, and act as a bit of grease to get things moving.
Descheduling is even more difficult - first because of international treaties, and second - part of the reason marijuana has not been rescheduled already is due to a lack of scientific evidence for specific things the FDA looks for. This is largely because people can't do research because of its classification... So it's a catch-22.
If the DEA rewchediles weed, this would allow for further research to be conducted which in time could allow it to be fully rescheduled.
The DEA has already signalled they are planning or at least wanting to reschedule weed to allow for further testing.
See here
OR... Congress could pass a law removing marijuana from the controlled substances act.
Couldn't he just sign an executive order to remove it from scheduling completely?
Not at all, weed is legal in half the country and it’s ridiculous that you have federal laws hanging over your head that you have to trust to be unenforced. This is clearly something where different states have different perspectives and there’s no reason for the federal government to stand in the way.
Why is it perfectly legal to start a dispensary, yet they have problems banking? Why is it legal to use various weed derivatives in most of the state, except federal land and you can still be charged with a federal crime?
While I appreciate living in a place with more freedom, weed is not my thing and I get annoyed with the stench - I don’t have a horse in this race
Do you want a Federal government that has control over everything?
I mean, it sounds great when you agree with the Federal goverment I guess, but people should focus more on their own local and state governments.
Those governments dont make as dramatic of TV though. So where peoples votes really count the most, most people aren't paying attention.
It blows my mind that people are clamoring for a stronger federal government a mere 3 years after trump left office and demonstrated why that's a horrible idea
Yeah, when I talk to people about politics, mainly online, it seems like everyone is reciting things theyv heard/read without critical thinking.
Giving all the power to people that line up with your beliefs in office sounds nice, until they ban abortions and have gun classes for kindergarteners next election.
We need checks and balances to work, and local => state => federal is a real important part of that. I 100% believe we should be taking as much power back from the federal government as possible, while still staying the United States. They hoarded power and turned that shit into a reality show
It's especially surprising on this topic. If the federal government had complete control like they're advocating, cannabis wouldn't be legal anywhere. Not even medical.
so you would rather be born in a random State and just hope you win the geographic lottery and have good laws? forgot just need to vote better
yes want a unified set of standards we all have to play by and not have to worry if I crossed the wrong state line would be nice
So you would have been happy if the trump administration had had significantly more power, then?
A unified set of standards that you like though, right? Not what the people you disagree with like? I have to assume you don't want Republican law choices to control every state.
United States was based of the idea of local and state governments united under a federal government, not dictated by that government. It's funny how in the 90s the New World Order was a huge fear, but but slowly seems like people online are leaning towards it now.
That's mostly how it works up here in Canada. So, feel free to compare and contrast.
I don't know Canadians government system well, but I do know it would be comparing to a completely different system. Either way, I'm sure there are benefits and drawbacks.
But in the last few decades, America has funneled more power to the President and the Federal government and I don't believe the government version of "trickle-down economics" is the right approach. For example, imagine a Republican held Federal government having authority over California. I don't think that'd have a positive outcome for the Californians.
Our local/state government is a solid structure, but my city of more than 100k people had 8k votes last local election. People should focus on local as much as they do federal, and I bet a lot more people would be happy with the governing of their area.
Canada's government is essentially 15 people, elected from the total population of the country, all 427 people, and they cross-country ski or snowshoe out to a big igloo-like capitol building with one medium sized conference room table inside, where they hold committee-style meetings and talk about what needs to be done, such as codifying new words for snow, I assume.
I dunno man, I'm in favor of decimalization... who wants to deal with fractions like eighths?