So tell your governor to decriminalize it at the state level.
If they go first, they're legalizing a drug against federal law...
Do we really want to encourage conservative states to pass laws against fed law and to refuse to enforce federal law?
If Biden descheduled, or even rescheduled, then it would be defacto legal in lots of states.
I get it, Biden is the best option we have, it's sucks.
But don't lie about what he can do to make him seem better. The only way he'll do anything is pressure. And eve n then only before a big election.
Plenty of states have decriminalized it, and work has begun to reschedule it.
Plenty of Blue states, and that's not a perfect solution.
So again:
Do we really want to encourage conservative states to pass laws against fed law and to refuse to enforce federal law?
Do you think the federal government should be telling conservative states to ignore federal law?
Because we've already set the precedent states don't have to follow federal law, and I'm not sure if you've heard anything about the supreme court lately but...
So wait for the rescheduling process to be completed. In the meantime, tell your state to decriminalize it so that once the feds are done people stop getting locked up for violating state laws.
So wait for the rescheduling process to be completed
....
Biden promised decriminalization...
That's not rescheduling.
In the meantime, tell your state to decriminalize
....
Many states have laws that make anything on various schedules illegal, and don't explicitly have laws against cannabis. If a drug is illegally federally, it's illegal in those states.
Even if they got rid of their laws, you're still wanting the federal government to tell states their laws override federal law.
You're missing very basic information about this to be so opinionated.
Cannabis is illegal because it’s classified as a schedule I drug in regards to the controlled substances act. Rescheduling it is decriminalizing it.
There’s no reason for you to take this so personally. I’m criticizing your opinion, no need to get defensive.
Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.
It's a good one, I know it sucks downloading a PDF, but you really should so you can read it.
Even the HHS secretary can’t just deschedule a drug on a whim. The HHS secretary has to present evidence that it shouldn’t be scheduled, and then the DEA has to get involved, and it requires input from the public and experts in the field.
The easier solution is for congress to amend the CSA. Putting the blame on Biden is disingenuous, especially given the fact that he’s trying to move things in the right direction.
So...
You disagree with the link you just provided?
Because I'm pretty sure they know more about what a president can do than either of us...
Like. You know that's the Congressional Research Services you're arguing with, right?
“Appoint officials who favor…”
“Direct to consider…”
Where does it say they can deschedule it on a whim?
Dude, pot was decriminalized in Ohio a long while ago, and we just legalized it against our government’s wishes.
That's my point.
The longer moderate Dems drag their feet, the more argument there is precedent state law supercedes federal law.
Do you legitimately not see the issue with that?
Are both parties going to be yelling about state rights now? Because I thought we had a while longer before shit got that bad.
States should have certain rights, and I do support full federal legalization. I just also don’t want the president to be so powerful they can override congress and the states because that’s a dictator.
I just also don’t want the president to be so powerful they can override congress and the states because that’s a dictator.
Like the Southern States during the Civil War?
It's kind of a popular opinion again these days, but I don't agree with it.
Also, you may be disappointed to find out that the Congress Research Services determined a president is that powerful, and can simply replace any agency head that disagrees with it.
Now, maybe your comfortable with Biden not abusing that, but whether Biden uses that power or not, every other president has that option.
So how much do you pressure Biden to change that?
That's the thing with "moderates" they won't use power to help because it might be used to harm, but they do nothing about stopping that abuse permanently.
They don't offer any solutions to either side of an issue, be a use the threat of the other side abusing the powers moderates won't use, is often the only way voters can be convinced to vote for a moderate.
No, the southern states argued that under no circumstances could the federal government ban anything.
And I do think he should replace agency heads. But I’m pretty sure it’s a congressional ban not an fda or DEA ban. But yeah, dude’s a moderate. It’s why I voted against him in the primaries this year and in 2020. But also knock it the fuck off. You sound like a lunatic. You don’t make you sound smart or your opponents sound evil, you make your position sound dumber than it has to.
Edit: it looks like it’s banned by scheduling which is its own entire can of worms and the entire scheduling system needs to be abolished or completely overhauled, but yeah my misconception on that is very common so maybe start there rather than by calling people confederates
And the reason I fear executive overreach is because the next republican will do it and I want it struck down before my fucking life is ruined as their current favorite target
Actually, state law does supersede federal law. Federal law only comes into effect when moving between states. Because a state in the classic definition is a country, not a territory of another country. In other words, each of our 50 states is a country, the country of New Hampshire, the country of Texas, the country of Arizona, and they just happen to have agreed to be underneath a bigger entity.
I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here and guess you're thinking of the 10th amendment that says in short 'if a right isn't specifically given to the feds it is reserved to the states', but that doesn't put state law over federal law in any case.
We literally fought a war over this...
The side with your opinion lost btw.
Yes, we did. And at the rate the federal government is abusing the states, it would not surprise me if we find ourselves an another one. Empires rise and empires fall. Look at history for some examples.
Post 1985 SF "sanctuary cities" where the city says they won't spend money enforcing federal law?
That's fine, and actually legal.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[42] The legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[43] Nothing in the law forces states or local governments to help the federal government with immigration enforcement.[44]
But if that's the balance you're looking for, if trump is elected he could raid "legal" stores in states he doesn't like and seize all the money. Just like CBP and ICE can still operate in a sanctuary city.
Do you think trump won't do that?
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
I’m also not sure where you got this idea I’d rather have Trump. Overall I’m satisfied with Biden’s performance.
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
Sanctuary cities can't stop ICE or CBP from arresting anyone...
And there is nothing stopping the federal government from raiding "legal" stores, arresting everyone, and seizing all the money.
That's why your "solution" isn't an actual solution.
I'm not saying you support trump, I'm saying any president who wanted to could do that and use the money for something they want.
And trump not doing it his first term is already surprising, you think he would have hesitated to do it to Cali if he thought of it?
The next Republican president probably won't be as stupid as trump. But he's gonna want all the same policies.
I never said it was a solution. It should be decriminalized entirely. But in the meantime, decriminalizing it at the state level helps everyone in that state. Any harm reduction is worth doing.
But do you understand that your solution isn't even a bandaid?
It's just ignoring the wound.
In this case infection would be a conservative president siccing the DEA on "legal states".
And if Biden won't/can't get the DEA to deschedule, how is he able to stop the DEA if they decide they want the billions in seized revenue from blue states to use at the border?
You're arguing Biden has no power over them (which me and the Congressional Research Services disagee with) but if that's true, wouldn't he also be unable to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law in those states?
Look up one tier. Take it or anything else off the controlled substances schedules this very moment and it will not be illegal. Great, but until there is a federal law, which has to go through Congress to happen, it's not a 'right' and states can declare it legal or not as they wish. It's the basic premise of the 10th amendment, if the feds don't declare something as in or out then it's fair game for the states.
He has the power to do something federally to make it 'not illigal'. However this is not the same as making it a declared legal right. Technically states could outlaw alcohol today too, and you do find 'dry' counties out there, but most don't want to be left out of that sweet tax revenue.
That all says, even if Biden could wave a wand and make it fully not illigal federally, if your state says no then you're stuck anyhow.
So tell your governor to decriminalize it at the state level.
If they go first, they're legalizing a drug against federal law...
Do we really want to encourage conservative states to pass laws against fed law and to refuse to enforce federal law?
If Biden descheduled, or even rescheduled, then it would be defacto legal in lots of states.
I get it, Biden is the best option we have, it's sucks.
But don't lie about what he can do to make him seem better. The only way he'll do anything is pressure. And eve n then only before a big election.
Plenty of states have decriminalized it, and work has begun to reschedule it.
Plenty of Blue states, and that's not a perfect solution.
So again:
Do you think the federal government should be telling conservative states to ignore federal law?
Because we've already set the precedent states don't have to follow federal law, and I'm not sure if you've heard anything about the supreme court lately but...
So wait for the rescheduling process to be completed. In the meantime, tell your state to decriminalize it so that once the feds are done people stop getting locked up for violating state laws.
....
Biden promised decriminalization...
That's not rescheduling.
....
Many states have laws that make anything on various schedules illegal, and don't explicitly have laws against cannabis. If a drug is illegally federally, it's illegal in those states.
Even if they got rid of their laws, you're still wanting the federal government to tell states their laws override federal law.
You're missing very basic information about this to be so opinionated.
Cannabis is illegal because it’s classified as a schedule I drug in regards to the controlled substances act. Rescheduling it is decriminalizing it.
There’s no reason for you to take this so personally. I’m criticizing your opinion, no need to get defensive.
No, it's not.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsinclair/2024/03/18/biden-says-hes-taking-care-of-federal-cannabis-laws-but-is-rescheduling-enough/?sh=66657a934e8d
Either you have no idea what you're talking about about, or you're willfully spreading misinformation...
You keep saying false things and insisting they're true, and I keep linking your sources showing why your argument is wrong...
But all you do is make another false statement
The President can’t remove a substance from the Controlled Substances Act. Talk to your representative and senators.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655
Hey, I know that link...
It's a good one, I know it sucks downloading a PDF, but you really should so you can read it.
Even the HHS secretary can’t just deschedule a drug on a whim. The HHS secretary has to present evidence that it shouldn’t be scheduled, and then the DEA has to get involved, and it requires input from the public and experts in the field.
The easier solution is for congress to amend the CSA. Putting the blame on Biden is disingenuous, especially given the fact that he’s trying to move things in the right direction.
So...
You disagree with the link you just provided?
Because I'm pretty sure they know more about what a president can do than either of us...
Like. You know that's the Congressional Research Services you're arguing with, right?
“Appoint officials who favor…”
“Direct to consider…”
Where does it say they can deschedule it on a whim?
Dude, pot was decriminalized in Ohio a long while ago, and we just legalized it against our government’s wishes.
That's my point.
The longer moderate Dems drag their feet, the more argument there is precedent state law supercedes federal law.
Do you legitimately not see the issue with that?
Are both parties going to be yelling about state rights now? Because I thought we had a while longer before shit got that bad.
States should have certain rights, and I do support full federal legalization. I just also don’t want the president to be so powerful they can override congress and the states because that’s a dictator.
Like the Southern States during the Civil War?
It's kind of a popular opinion again these days, but I don't agree with it.
Also, you may be disappointed to find out that the Congress Research Services determined a president is that powerful, and can simply replace any agency head that disagrees with it.
Now, maybe your comfortable with Biden not abusing that, but whether Biden uses that power or not, every other president has that option.
So how much do you pressure Biden to change that?
That's the thing with "moderates" they won't use power to help because it might be used to harm, but they do nothing about stopping that abuse permanently.
They don't offer any solutions to either side of an issue, be a use the threat of the other side abusing the powers moderates won't use, is often the only way voters can be convinced to vote for a moderate.
No, the southern states argued that under no circumstances could the federal government ban anything.
And I do think he should replace agency heads. But I’m pretty sure it’s a congressional ban not an fda or DEA ban. But yeah, dude’s a moderate. It’s why I voted against him in the primaries this year and in 2020. But also knock it the fuck off. You sound like a lunatic. You don’t make you sound smart or your opponents sound evil, you make your position sound dumber than it has to.
Edit: it looks like it’s banned by scheduling which is its own entire can of worms and the entire scheduling system needs to be abolished or completely overhauled, but yeah my misconception on that is very common so maybe start there rather than by calling people confederates
And the reason I fear executive overreach is because the next republican will do it and I want it struck down before my fucking life is ruined as their current favorite target
Actually, state law does supersede federal law. Federal law only comes into effect when moving between states. Because a state in the classic definition is a country, not a territory of another country. In other words, each of our 50 states is a country, the country of New Hampshire, the country of Texas, the country of Arizona, and they just happen to have agreed to be underneath a bigger entity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here and guess you're thinking of the 10th amendment that says in short 'if a right isn't specifically given to the feds it is reserved to the states', but that doesn't put state law over federal law in any case.
We literally fought a war over this...
The side with your opinion lost btw.
Yes, we did. And at the rate the federal government is abusing the states, it would not surprise me if we find ourselves an another one. Empires rise and empires fall. Look at history for some examples.
If Biden made the claim he has the power to do it, he should be the one to deliver.
I don’t really think it’s up to the President to explain the difference between federal law enforcement and state law enforcement 🤷♂️
You're literally arguing that Biden should tell states that state law supersecedes federal law...
We literally fought a whole war over this.
No, I’m telling you to tell your state to decriminalize it.
So your opinion is the Confederacy was right in the Civil War?
And even if the federal government made slavery illegal, all the South had to do was ignore it?
Because you just don't seem to understand what you're promoting...
Are you arguing that sanctuary cities are wrong?
....
Historically?
They were started by religious fundamentalists, and it was kind of a shitshow
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
Post 1985 SF "sanctuary cities" where the city says they won't spend money enforcing federal law?
That's fine, and actually legal.
But if that's the balance you're looking for, if trump is elected he could raid "legal" stores in states he doesn't like and seize all the money. Just like CBP and ICE can still operate in a sanctuary city.
Do you think trump won't do that?
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
I’m also not sure where you got this idea I’d rather have Trump. Overall I’m satisfied with Biden’s performance.
Sanctuary cities can't stop ICE or CBP from arresting anyone...
And there is nothing stopping the federal government from raiding "legal" stores, arresting everyone, and seizing all the money.
That's why your "solution" isn't an actual solution.
I'm not saying you support trump, I'm saying any president who wanted to could do that and use the money for something they want.
And trump not doing it his first term is already surprising, you think he would have hesitated to do it to Cali if he thought of it?
The next Republican president probably won't be as stupid as trump. But he's gonna want all the same policies.
I never said it was a solution. It should be decriminalized entirely. But in the meantime, decriminalizing it at the state level helps everyone in that state. Any harm reduction is worth doing.
But do you understand that your solution isn't even a bandaid?
It's just ignoring the wound.
In this case infection would be a conservative president siccing the DEA on "legal states".
And if Biden won't/can't get the DEA to deschedule, how is he able to stop the DEA if they decide they want the billions in seized revenue from blue states to use at the border?
You're arguing Biden has no power over them (which me and the Congressional Research Services disagee with) but if that's true, wouldn't he also be unable to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law in those states?
Look up one tier. Take it or anything else off the controlled substances schedules this very moment and it will not be illegal. Great, but until there is a federal law, which has to go through Congress to happen, it's not a 'right' and states can declare it legal or not as they wish. It's the basic premise of the 10th amendment, if the feds don't declare something as in or out then it's fair game for the states.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
He has the power to do something federally to make it 'not illigal'. However this is not the same as making it a declared legal right. Technically states could outlaw alcohol today too, and you do find 'dry' counties out there, but most don't want to be left out of that sweet tax revenue.
That all says, even if Biden could wave a wand and make it fully not illigal federally, if your state says no then you're stuck anyhow.