643
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 04 Feb 2024
643 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19126 readers
3506 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
What's the over/under on this happening before November?
If election theater motivates this policy and makes this happen then I’m all for it. I wonder what our criminal AG in Texas thinks about all this, considering he’s trying to do the opposite in cities with lax marijuana enforcement.
Even if marijuana was descheduled, it would still be illegal due to Texas state law
I think most states in which it is illegal would remain illegal. Many states would probably update their laws in response to the DEA descheduling it.
Many states have laws based on the federal schedule and don’t specifically name any drugs, so there would be some immediate effects.
If the law only references federal definitions of scheduled drugs, they would need to update their laws before this went into effect or else risk letting the population have legal weed for a short window, which likely would spur voters to try and regain their newly found drug
Right, which is why I bothered to link Texas law, which references by name.
My own state references it by name. I suspect many/most state marijuana laws predate the formation of the DEA but I’m not a historian/lawyer.
Sure texas is covered, but we got a lot of states. A ton are going to need proactive laws or else risk kicking a hornets nest in an election year
Importantly too, they'd have to police it using their own state resources.
Biden does good thing
Idiots: "He's only doing this to get votes!"
Yeah, no shit sherlock, that's the whole point of the system.
People play the lottery too.. so
What's the likelihood a rock from space hits Trump in his diaper?
Much lower considering rescheduling marijuana is a basic government act and not a ridiculously unlikely astronomical event. Also, it would gain Biden a lot of votes.
And send the theocracy into a rage in another dimension, one in which they wouldn't be sure why their hair is falling out
i was under the impression the president could unilaterally just order the DEA to do it as its under the executive. is that true?
As far as I understand it, the DEA has the independence to make the decision themselves and all the president can do is tell them what he wants.
Ya, it really should be legislated. I doubt that's happening before November, though.
Legislated implies Congress passing a law. That of course will not happen before the election, and likely not while Biden is president due to some Republicans being against the idea of legalization and also Republicans not wanting to give Biden nor Democrats a win. DEA resxheduling it is the most likely scenario that should hold up in court especially since Biden followed a process to support the change(asking for another department to review whether it is a dangerous drug, and using their response as evidence for the DEA)
Kind of. It's murky legal waters.
It is, but Biden could be using the bully pulpit to talk about how it should be rescheduled and I think the only reason he hasn't is because he's old and he hasn't been convinced yet that "reefer" is safe.
Oh, I agree, he could be pushing much harder for it.
Depends on if Biden thinks he can get the support he needs by just pretending to look into it some more.