If Biden reschedules (or even better legalizes β I know this is a larger challenge legally) cannabis and takes a harder stance against Israel, I think he would win most of the key states he needs to win the election. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and to a lesser degree Georgia will determine this election. The rest of the states are locked in. A 1% swing can mean the difference to prevent a dictatorship.
Don't underestimate domestic pro-Israel agents' ability to assassinate a US politician's political career. Lemmy is not the American media, and the latter is still largely supporting Israel's campaign.
Also, I genuinely don't think most Americans care all that much to the degree it would affect their support of Biden.
I'm struggling to think of anyone I know who is so upset about Israel they would consider throwing the country to Trump, and I know a lot of people that have very strong opinions on Israel.
It just doesn't track. If you're against Israel's actions, you're probably also not keen on fascism, racism, and authoritarianism...so logically, you're not keen on letting Trump win.
According to the census, 1.1% of Americans are Muslim and many Muslim leaders are encouraging their base not to vote for Biden. They arenβt voting for Trump either but since Muslims lean heavily democrat, a non vote is the same as voting for Trump in a swing state. It isnβt that they want Trump and authoritarianism, itβs that they are protesting against the US support for Israel.
Well that there is a failure of Muslim leadership.
Hatred is often a self destructive thing. Not voting for Biden increases the probability that Trump will win which will be a very bad thing for Muslims in the US. So they're willing to cause themselves harm over their hatred of Israel.
Maybe it's time people stop listening to leaders that want to sacrifice the people they lead to make themselves look like strong men?
I certainly do not disagree with you. What the Muslim leaders are doing is certainly stupid as Trump will be far worse for their people in the Middle East. I am just relaying the information that is out there about their current agenda.
I think it's too soon to tell really. There's people saying a lot of things out of emotion but emotions tend to fade. It's easy to say you hypothetically won't vote for Biden to exert pressure right now, but when facing the cold hard reality of the potential for a Trump presidency which emotion takes precedence.
Mostly this thing is dependent on Hamas being decisively defeated a few months before the election so people will no longer have the most documented war in history on their screens making them upset.
How the fuck is refusing to support genocide "hatred"?
US foreign policy over multiple decades has hammered home for Muslims that both parties froth at the mouth to murder them and their families. It's only natural that we won't vote for either of those murderers. I know I'll personally be voting for the Green Party, and the only thing that could get me to consider voting for a Democrat ever again would be if the President turned himself, Obama, and George W. bush over to The Hague to stand trial for their murderous wars.
Yea sadly. Even just looking at israel/gaza Trump would do at least as bad as biden and probably worse.
My looming thought is* we prevent a dictatorship...for now.
If the DNC had a backbone it wouldn't be Biden to begin with.
You mean if they were stupid enough to try nominating any of the candidates Biden beat 4 years ago? Stupid enough to gamble on a new candidate, ignoring the fact Biden already beat Trump once? Stupid enough to ignore the fact the fact that the incumbent president more often than not wins reelection?
You're right, democracy is on the line, now's the best time to fucking gamble it away.
Well said
"now's" as good a time as any
"this time for sure"
"can't believe how easily this will be to beat trump"
"better of 2 evils! don't worry we'll just go further left in 4 years :)"
"oopsie dead babies :("
[repeats ad nauseam until the libs are dead or go further right]
donβt worry weβll just go further left in 4 years :)β
But we did. The Inflation Reduction Act was not only the most climate friendly bill in US history, it bolstered domestic green energy companies so much that Canada and Europe had to pass similar legislation to stay competitive (and keep companies from relocating).
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Israel is going to keep killing babies, and the US president is going to support Israel, no matter who it is, for the foreseeable future.
Your choice is if you'll willingly accept the burden and do whatever you can nonetheless to help the most people domestically and globally -- or if you'll pretend you aren't carrying the burden, and you're willing to throw women, black Americans, brown Americans, gay Americans, trans Americans, etc under the bus to maintain that delusion.
No matter what you do, if you pay taxes in the US, you're funding infanticidal Israeli weapons. Democracy is shitty like that. The majority of people are uncomfortable with all the civilian deaths, but a majority still wants to fund weapons for them. Don't like it? Grit your teeth, try to make a difference, and minimize any unnecessary support to Israel.
There will be no leftist utopia except from the labor of blood soaked hands from those who understand there's no other choice. I can only hope that one day my kids or their kids will be able to judge me without any hypocrisy, because we successfully made a world free of these awful realities.
Biden didn't beat shit. He had the DNC machine tell all the other candidates to drop out and put their full support behind Biden and have the media machine pump out story after story about Biden's miraculous turnaround. Biden beat the other candidates in the same way Putin scored 8 goals in a hockey game.
If Biden ended the war on drugs it would nearly completely clench at least his party's re-election, probably swing the congress on over too.
Not to mention it's absolutely the correct decision.
For politicians, the morality and ethics around policy are more of a consolation prize.
Honestly, people being able to get tested known doses of various drugs of choice would save a lot of lives and create a lot of opportunity to intervene and help people recover. Making drugs illegal just causes miser and funds crime.
Maybe for weed, but I donβt think that would be so clear cut for other substances. Even here San Francisco, the public is only willing to go so far with decriminalizing.
I would wager that weed, and maybe certain hallucinations would be bump in the polls, but for narcotics and opioids, ending the war on that stuff would hurt him. But maybe Iβm wrong.
Ending it would involve more than lel drugs are legal have fun. It would be a shift to focus on treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention by treating social deficits that tend to breed addiction, those are proven consistently effective treatments. If prohibition ever worked we wouldn't have weed, alcohol, and coke would sell completely caffeine free beverages.
I'm not necessarily against legalizing other drugs, but I would need a lot of time to research it and understand what studies have been done. There's some substances which are outright harmful and people shouldn't take, and I don't think criminalization is the solution. But, I also don't know that complete legalization is.
Off the cuff, I think I'd support decriminalized possession, but the material is still confiscated. Manufacturing however should remain illegal (other than for weed) because it's way too easy to make snake oil and impurities. I'd favor official govt meth versus making manufacturing it legal.
You know that thereβs government legal meth, right?
Its brand name is Desoxyn.
Do you know what the first legal government meth was?
Meth.
Desoxyn is literally a brand name for methamphetamine, so you're not saying anything different.
Hm? Widen your scope of semantic salience my friend, I do say something different, but that's just academia, don't take it too seriously it's not a challenge.
Wow I just went down a rabbit hole... I feel (pray) so many things would have to fail for you to actually get that Rx filled tho
Itβs a very effective medicine, though. For example, in small doses itβs more effective than adderall or Ritalin for ADHD. Itβs less common than either of those drugs because there is a higher abuse potential, but there is nothing really wrong with it either.
The key here is small doses taken orally. Taking it in a medical context is a very different animal than recreational methamphetamine.
Our air force crews are often given one of these during combat missions. I imagine other military units use them when necessary, too. They also prescribe it to people with severe narcolepsy.
Huh? Sorry, I fell asleep. Could you say that one more time?
I mean we know people will do it regardless, no matter the substance. Substances are being thoroughly tested, and finally seeing serious academic and clinical research on their therapeutic uses, so that is actually going pretty great and showing awesome results (yeyy drugs!!), and I will never get over the argument that prohibition only strengthens the mafia.
Yeah you really cut out the leg from cartels if you get rid of prohibition.
I think as long as we can positively ID a substance as coming from a safe manufacturer, it's fine. Street products cooked up in a trailer are what need to go away. That probably means the government subsidizes drug companies to provide them at low cost.
Fuck it manufacture it in government labs, make it taxable. How could that possibly ever be worse than the street wars we have right now?
Agreed. For that to be politically viable though we need to first render Republicans impotent.
Look, we can't be adjusting our ideas to take morons into account, one has to have a clear image before one's eyes want one want to achieve, or it ain't gonna get beyond the idea stage.
Is this what we want? Is this what I want? Fuck yes, so we can fight for that, it is well defined and without bullshit, that's a platform easy to defend, you know what I mean? Don't give a shit what some would think or say, wars are not won by appeasing the enemy.
Oh I agree completely, I'm just saying the first battle in the war is triumphing over the GOP. It's more a logical first step than a necessary one. We don't have to give any quarter, just recognize which battles we need to face and what milestones we need to achieve.
you know all of those "illegal" drugs are legal if you have enough money? There isn't a single "illegal" drug that you cant get as long as someone slaps like a Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, or Bayer label on it and signs their name to say you can have it.
Prohibition doesn't work, we have a lot of history to show that, we also have a lot of history to know that treatment, rehabilitation, and social safety nets go a really long way towards stopping addiction and substance abuse.
Yeah, I think I mostly agree. Don't think material should be confiscated though, that could cause people to avoid official harm reduction resources. But, I wouldn't want to see private business, like gas stations, liquor stores, or "dispensaries" making profit from selling and pushing fentanyl, tranq, krokodil and stuff like that. I do think more drugs with low addiction and harm potential should be legalized such as shrooms, LSD, and probably most psychedelics.
All that being said all legalization and decriminalization must coincide with massive investment in addiction treatment, harm reduction, and probably housing. Ideally, the root causes of the drug epidemic should be addressed, such as poverty, lack of adequate healthcare such as therapy, people generally feeling hopeless because of their material conditions, etc.
Completely agree on everything except confiscation -- which I agree is tricky. I think you confiscate anything that's "off brand" to keep them off the streets, but that's it. I don't want some shitty chemist making impure drugs that cause serious harm. Those need to go. We'd need a free certified container program.
I can't even fathom the rationalization process going on with you folks with the fent and other substances, it really looks like a dystopian Ridley Scott shot when you look at it from the other side of the Atlantic...
I'll bet good money that if he tries it it'll be closer to August
Because you fucking know it's gonna get challenged and that the Supreme Court is gonna be all brow furrowey trying to invent a reason why it's unconstitutional to not pursue a drug policy based in exactly zero medical science.
At least if it's near the election the topic will still be fresh by the time SCOTUS chooses that laws are for binding Democrats and protecting Republicans.
It would be extremely hard to argue that, but given the three clowns trump appointed who knows.
SCOTUS is extremely unpopular. If they tell Biden to throw more people in jail and he replies with a very public, "get fucked you corrupt prison lobby shills" his poll number would go up even higher.
I wonder if marijuana news paper dot com has any bias slant towards marijuana
Lake Research Partners conducted the study, not the marijuana blog.
This made me lol. Thanks
"Breaking News: Polls show that if Biden were better, more people would like him."
Deep cuts by @themeatbridge
Shocked Pikachu face
Oh theyβre going to put this carrot in front of us again?
"Biden stands to gain approval if he does incredibly obvious thing that people approve of."
So he's not gonna do it then? Great.
Next he will promise to close gitmo and support unions!
His campaign promise 7 days before the election...
βAs president, Iβll work to reform the criminal justice system, improve community policing, decriminalize marijuana, and automatically expunge all prior marijuana convictions.β
Let's hope he keeps it up!
JUST STOP FUNDING THE ISRAEL CONFLICT.
I would like for all of us to sit down, just for a short while, together, take a deep breath, and figure out where we're going.
Just imagine. We could be an interplanetary species by now. Instead of solving problems, we instead create them for short-term monetary gains.
Yeah but how would 8 people live like gods while the rest of us fight it out?
Ah yes, because it's not about doing what is right, it's about political gain. Fuck america so so much.
In theory the two are supposed to be aligned. Political will is supposed to go up when the politicians do what's right and down when they do wrong. That's what is going on here but I agree that they aren't usually aligned.
It's about doing what is right, but waiting until it's most politically beneficial before doing it
Not really. I highly doubt it will be rescheduled prior to election when they are just talking about it now.
Liberal cope. Maybe in 2028, maybe in 2032, certainly he/she will need to utilize this card in 2036? Wait wait but what if they wanted to pull that shit in 2040?.. Fuck
Lol he's actually taken steps to reschedule it, I know you probably wish we were in a dictatorship where Biden could just say, "weed is now legal, Trump will now be put in jail, and top republicans are to be killed" but we don't live in that world thankfully.
He started the process to reschedule marijuana in 2022, with the last update being from the DEA on December 2023 being that they are reviewing whether to reschedule marijuana and what to reschedule it as.
I assume if Biden just signed an executive order to change it, it would have been held up in the courts and probably overturned because of not going through a formal process ( imagine if Biden could just unilaterally make fentanyl street legal).
Genuinely cute you think Biden of all people would even reclassify let alone decriminalize π€£
That's literally the process he's going to now. Not to mention it's actually beneficial for him politically.
It's pretty sad how little you know about politics, yet you feel the need to discuss it.
It doesn't matter if people support it if they don't remember it well enough to come out to vote when it matters. You see this with Biden already, people completely missing the effort they have made for tons of work that people support.
Yet republican voters are far more dedicated to voting because the republican party makes bold promises and pushes to do them. Even if it's as stupid as a border wall, they'll make that promise and actually get funding for it and build at least part of it. Democrats, though, "it's not feasible", "it's not possible", "we can't do that", "it's not realistic". If democrats would show that they at least try, voters would try. No, forgiving a few billion in student loans here or there after letting the problem build up to 1.7 trillion dollars isn't enough effort. What if instead they said "we will eliminate student loan debt completely" and then work on it, instead of hitting up low-hanging fruit like enforcing existing student loan forgiveness programs that forgive after 10+ years of interest payments?
On top of the answer you have already received (people forget by the time election rolls around), I'll be extra pessimistic and say that majority of Americans publicly support progressive policies, but may in private and in the ballot box lean more conservative. If you know you sound like a monster, you might say the nice things in public, but then when not accountable for their image in the ballot box... well...
You might have a point if the poll was asking people about race or any other sensitive topic, but people will not dress up their opinions if they don't think they'll get attacked for them. Nobody has their job threatened if they advocate for private health insurance companies.
Sure, not all progressive policies have this phenomenon, but for some, even in a relatively private but not actually private or anonymous context being asked about some policies may elicit a different reaction.
All of the cited policies in that article has a counterpoint that may drive different anonymous private behavior.
They will mean either taxes go up or companies that you buy from may have to spend more money. So it's incredibly selfish to declare that people shouldn't have a livable wage, shouldn't have access to workable income when accommodating a newborn, shouldn't have access to higher education. However, in the ballot box someone might be very selfish "I make more than minimum wage, so I don't care, but I do care that it might raise prices, I am not about to have a kid, so happy to screw over those that are for the sake of the companies saving money, I have health insurance and so I don't care if someone else can't realistically have it/afford it".
So you're saying that in a poll, people would lie and say they want higher taxes but in private they want lower taxes? Why? Wanting lower taxes is, again, not something that would bring on attacks, there is no reason to lie about that. No one's name is being publicized in this poll either. You're making up all these odd scenarios to try to get an opposite answer to what is staring you in the face right there.
People argue against a livable wage all the time, though. They just say that those jobs "were never meant to be a career", that it's "supposed to be for kids earning extra spending cash", that "if people want to make good money they need to develop skills". They'll tell you that if we interfere in the "free market", it will wreck the economy, and we'll all be starving. They're thrilled to tell you how they, or their parents, made sure to be in a good financial position before having kids, and if people have kids who can't afford the costs including time off to be good parents, that's because those people are irresponsible. And on down the line. They'll shame you for "demanding free stuff", and walk away feeling smugly superior.
It's just fundamentally not how human psychology works to publicly acknowledge what you think is good, and then privately work against it. People who do the worst and most selfish things always have a justification for it.
Some people will happily express that sentiment.
Others might be more reserved...
At least that's the a way I can reconcile all these countless articles that repeatedly show that like 70-80% of people support key policies of the democrat platform, and yet the elections seem to break almost even between republican and democrat. Districting shenanigans and the electoral college can account for some oddities, but the senate keeps being roughly a tie and even the popular vote for president is much closer than all this data suggests it should be.
The Senate is affected by the OG of gerrymandering, giving an enormously greater weight to votes in less populous states.
Most people are not as informed as you. They aren't analyzing their views on specific issues and voting for the candidates most in alignment with that. They're voting based on single hot-button issues like abortion or gun control. They're voting based on the way they feel about a politician. They're scared of terminology made up to scare them, seeing the Democrats as representing "cultural Marxism" and "critical race theory". They are in an information bubble that builds a worldview which is complete, compelling, but incorrect, and their votes reflect that.
I mean, democracy is supposed to align those two needs.
That's kind of inevitable, and not such a bad thing. The president is one person. One person shouldn't be deciding what is right arbitrarily. For the president to be looking at what the people want, that's a good thing. Now, our democratic systems are deeply flawed, so that "what the people want" and "what improves electoral chances" are not as closely tied as they should be, but that's another matter.
Yeah it's basically baked into the system. Politicians will be politicians and there are other checks and balances like the vote that are supposed to keep them reigned in. Not excusing bad behavior on the part of politicans, but as voters we could excercise more control over them if we were more educated and organized. There are too many crappy politicians that aren't afraid for their jobs.
This is obviously simplifying and ignores other urgent problems like gerrymandering, vote suppression, and money in politics.
It's not even what's right in full. Rescheduling helps get us towards legalization someday but rescheduling probably also means people are still going to be sitting in jail for possession until well after 2028.
Biden will probably get this done. He said he was going to, seems like the administrative steps to do so are happening.
But here's what will happen: the Supreme Court is getting ready to shred another longstanding precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine. Without Chevron, any federal court will be able to enjoin any action of any federal agency just by saying that the agency's interpretation of the statute, even though it's reasonable, isn't what Congress really intended. In other words, agencies will no longer be able to regulate much of anything because corporations will just file a lawsuit in some backwards ass federal court district and the judge's interpretation of the statute will carry more weight than the agency that administers the statute.
That's the Republican plan, here. They give half a shit about DEA administrative scheduling, they can't wait to destroy the FCC, SEC, IRS, EPA, FTC, FEC, etc. If the DEA reschedules cannabis, and the Republicans cannot lock up enough black and brown people, they will judge shop until they find one to say doing so isn't what Congress intended with cannabis prohibition statutes, and enjoin the rescheduling.
Latest ep. of Strict Scrutiny podcast ("AITA? SCOTUS Edition") has a good deep dive on this.
Could legal weed save America from becoming a fascist dystopia under Trump? Headline of the century.
How would it become a fascist dystopia exactly?
Perhaps our definition of dystopia differ, but any country led by an authoritarian Trump with Project 2025 underway, where the executive branch is dissolved to favor a Trump dictatorship, I'd call that a fascist dystopia.
Source?
Yeah, people like weed way more than they like Biden.
I'd take weed over any politician any day of the week.
QP 2024!
Ok here me out. Obama wants to smoke a joint with you however you have to listen to Nancy Pelosi talk about her grandchildren for twenty minutes. What do?
Dude, it's a gran talking about her grandkids. That's happy talk, not politics. It's just twenty minutes and I have better weed than 44. It'll be over before you know it. Like, I spent five minutes talking pizza and stupid bicyclists (mostly my brother, we were talking about the same person but I'll never tell her) with Hillary Clinton after a college commencement and she was delightful. If she had been able to show that side of herself, like, ever in politics, she'd have maybe won elections.
I wouldn't want to talk politics with Pelosi. Can go on YouTube and find videos of her dressing people down. She knows her shit and she's fast.
I agree re: Clinton. I'd say it's like that with most politicians. That's why their constituents keep electing them and everyone else hates their guts. They didn't get elected without charisma.
I smoke a doobie with ol' 'Bama and have a nice conversation with Pelosi.
To be fair Biden didn't help me relax last Friday or inspire my p&j + BLT with hot sauce club sandwich idea. Parent pending
Parent pending
Better hide the weed before they show up
They legalised cannibis in NY and now my 79 year old mother is getting high at parties. Thanks Obama.
I hope Republicans get behind it and reap benefits too. Rescheduling shouldn't end up another political victim like health care was.
Wouldn't it be great if we got more bipartisanship and improved our country for everyone? They call me a dreamer
But you're not...
He'd be the only one.
Rescheduling is a far cry from legalizing. It really shouldn't matter that much to voters unless he legalizes.
Unfortunately the scheduling is in the way to becoming legal because it's been such a roadblock for so long.
The presidential debate should be two candidates chilling and smoking a blunt
JFC, can you imagine how insufferable that would be? Biden falls asleep on the couch with a half-eaten pint of ice cream. DeSantis and Trump are debating their favorite isekai, but they're only arguing about which one has hotter girls. Vivic just keeps saying "Fuckin A" whenever Trump says anything. Haley is pouting on her phone because nobody is paying enough attention to her.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me; βdozens of young White House staffersβ freshly hired were abruptly told to quit, were suspended from their jobs, or otherwise punished βdue to past marijuana use.β
The phrase, which is from Texas, but also maybe Tennessee, is actually, "Fool me once, shame on β shame on you. Fool me β you can't get fooled again."
I love that W moment, because you can see on his face the realization of where that quote was going. Like it occured to him after he started speaking that he was saying "fool me" too much, and also that he was taking blame for the second part. So, he tried to abort mission and eject from the quote, but it was too late and he knew it.
"Fool me once, shame on... (wait, I just said I got fooled. That's no good. At least I'm saying it's not my fault.) shame on you. (How does the rest of it go?) Fool me... (Fuck, I just said I got fooled again. Shit shit shit, the end of this quote is "shame on me" but that's the opposite of the image I want. How can I... let's just go with...) you can't get fooled again. (Heh, nailed it.)"
I really miss the days when he was the stupidest President in living memory.
The way he physically leans over the podium in the video to emphasize "you can't get fooled again," is probably my favorite W moment. That, or, "...now watch this drive!"
GWB is a genius and patriot, poster of honesty, compared to the orange dumpster fire.
I mean, no, GWB sucked on balance. Whether he was a patsy or not, he was the occupant of the oval office when we were attacked, when we responded by attacking the wrong countries, when our regulatory bodies were captured by the businesses they were supposed to govern, when our budget surplus was used to line the pockets of the wealthy, when the housing market and the banking industries were set up to collapse, when xenophobia and bigotry were permitted to rage like a wildfire, through all of it, he was a bad President. You can't blame him personally for all of it, nor would I say he did everything wrong (his work in Africa to fight HIV comes to mind as a success). But he was not a genius, a patriot, or honest, even in comparison to Donald Trump. Trump only had four years, and surrounded himself with incompetent criminals. Dick Cheney made himself and his friends rich(er) through defense contracts during the 8 years he was in office, making far more than Trump managed to stuff into his pockets with his tiny fingers.
I mean, i bet he'd be surprised how successful he could be if he actually started doing good things. Ending your ridiculous american war on everything would be a good start. So would actual health care implemented without republican consultation (otherwise known as nerfing), and really any other point on a civil democrat's agenda would be good. You know, all the things that have only been payed lip service since the 80s, like education. The debt forgiveness is a good move.
i bet he'd be surprised how successful he could be if he actually started doing good things.
Especially if they're things he promised to do 5 years ago when he was campaigning
Here you go bud, take a peek and see how it's going so far.
At this point I dont expect him to do anything that's not the political equivalent of a home run served up on a tee ball tee.
That's usually the case with first terms, they're an extended interview for the second term when he actually sometimes does what he wants to do. My solution is a limit of one term for every federal office, make reelection irrelevant.
I doubt very much that Biden's second term will be substantially different from his first. I will still vote for him, but only because the alternative is utter disaster.
Biden ended billions and billions of student loan debt. He announced funding for HSR projects. He began pardoning non-violent drug offences. He rolled back dangerous Trump era policies surrounding climate change. He blocked the Keystone XL pipeline. He ended the Muslim travel ban. He ended the state of emergency at the border which was created by Trump to divert federal funds to build the disastrous "wall". Like, people are funny and think that Biden hasn't done anything in 4 years.
Yea people are just falling for media propaganda or both sides again. He's done roughly a third of what he promised and a bunch more that wasn't one of his promises and still has a bunch in the works. Here's a link for proof. Roughly a third is stalled and it isn't even all his fault but the other side pushing back.
Those likely voters will get stoned forget to vote /s
Leave a trail of Cap'n Crunch to the polls
Chocolate Milk and Twizzlers was my go-to back in the day.
Funyuns.
How sad that of all the reasons to support the candidate who isn't a raging fascist, this is the one people care about the most?
Like...yeah, marijuana is great, but holy shit there's a lot more important things going on in the world.
It's not just about being able to smoke weed, it's more about the disproportionate amount of minorities who get unjust prison sentences over a fucking flower. I'd say to POC it's pretty important.
The ven diagram of people who are cool with fascism and people who are cool with cannabis must overlap.
There's people in prison for cannabis, doing decades or even life sentences. To people effected by these laws this is an important subject. And I bet States could still keep it illegal and keep people in prison if they choose to. But I can see how it might not seem like a big deal if you think this only effects whether it can be bought it in a store or from a weed dealer.
This will only affect whether it can be bought in a store or not lol..
I don't smoke weed, and probably wouldn't even if legalized, but I fully support its legalization because of the absolutely MASSIVE negative effect the war on drugs has had on minority communities.
I don't really care if people smoke it or not, I care about the people getting their lives destroyed for smoking it.
Every politician says they will legalize weed if it gets them votes. No politician will ever actually legalize it though because then they lose one of their biggest platforms to draw voters. The single-minded boomer vote also disappears if he does legalize it.
That's what everyone thought about abortion until those maniacs did it. This would be different though since there isn't as much backlash and then they can also say they have to protect it next election.
I dunno, I sort of feel like Roe is the real holy grail here. I don't think that most conservatives actually care about cannabis, but they are happy to enforce it because it causes people to suffer.
You'd be surprised what kind of policy gets passed in an election year.
LEGALIZE IT
DON'T CRITICIZE
Makes sense. It sounds like something voters would want.
What voters want. Tricky pickle.
What?! Weed is popular? When did this happen.......
βBiden says heβs gonna reschedule pot! Letβs have a victory joint!β
βWanna go vote?β
βNah, too stoned.β
(J/k)
Simpsons did it
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.
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 itβs 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 thereβs 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 donβt 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.
Do you want a Federal government that has control over everything?
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.
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.
Biden wants to reschedule and decimalize
I dunno man, I'm in favor of decimalization... who wants to deal with fractions like eighths?
Do it!
Guess what he won't do.
I'm rescheduling my marijuana to 4:20 to fuel the rise of dank brandon.
I bet he is going against guns to make absolutely sure that Trump wins.
The guy who liberals say is always powerless is able to do something good? This must be some type of mistake.
But if he legalizes weed democrats lose the "Vote for us cause THEY'LL never legalize it (neither will we but we bat the idea around when elections come up)" which makes up half of their whole political platform of "We're not them (just real close!)"
Ah, the Andrew Cuomo gambit. I'm familiar.
My state turned blue and legalized π€
Not sure if you meant that to be satirical, but do you think that Biden hasn't passed good policy before?
Biden also sidestepped congress to fund genocide. Cannabis has gotten lip service from dems for decades, what makes you think mid right Biden would actually be the one to give that up?
Which is exactly why the DEA won't
Like bread and circuses except it's drugs and overseas wars ig
Where exactly is this poll?
I would like to add to this statistic
I thought that this was binned because too many GOP types were for it.
But then he loses the +Police vote
Does the +Police vote even care that much about marijuana anymore? I feel that marijuana won the cultural war forever ago, it's just that it takes a long time for political change to follow.
I think on deeper levels it does, because it is going to mean a drastic slash of municipal personnel currently involved with bureaucratic processes, meaning fewer jobs and less money for a whole division of government spending. What's your take?
A double digit bump would be, at worst, 10%. 160 million people voted in 2020, so 16 million. There are just under 1 million police sworn officers in the US, so Iβm gonna take a guess that this is a worthwhile electoral trade-off for Biden.
That's his trump card, no pun. He'll play it if absolutely necessary but the card can only be played once and a future politician might need it more.
"Future politician" ... Trump turning America into a dictatorship ... ya, probably should play it now since it can't be played later. Trump's at UNO and we are debating if we should play a draw four card.
Aren't we living in the age where we do whatever we want because there is no future though?
If Biden reschedules (or even better legalizes β I know this is a larger challenge legally) cannabis and takes a harder stance against Israel, I think he would win most of the key states he needs to win the election. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and to a lesser degree Georgia will determine this election. The rest of the states are locked in. A 1% swing can mean the difference to prevent a dictatorship.
Don't underestimate domestic pro-Israel agents' ability to assassinate a US politician's political career. Lemmy is not the American media, and the latter is still largely supporting Israel's campaign.
Also, I genuinely don't think most Americans care all that much to the degree it would affect their support of Biden.
I'm struggling to think of anyone I know who is so upset about Israel they would consider throwing the country to Trump, and I know a lot of people that have very strong opinions on Israel.
It just doesn't track. If you're against Israel's actions, you're probably also not keen on fascism, racism, and authoritarianism...so logically, you're not keen on letting Trump win.
According to the census, 1.1% of Americans are Muslim and many Muslim leaders are encouraging their base not to vote for Biden. They arenβt voting for Trump either but since Muslims lean heavily democrat, a non vote is the same as voting for Trump in a swing state. It isnβt that they want Trump and authoritarianism, itβs that they are protesting against the US support for Israel.
Source: https://apnews.com/article/muslim-swing-state-biden-vote-fb3b93f465ed6fd34a901c269a084a90
Well that there is a failure of Muslim leadership.
Hatred is often a self destructive thing. Not voting for Biden increases the probability that Trump will win which will be a very bad thing for Muslims in the US. So they're willing to cause themselves harm over their hatred of Israel.
Maybe it's time people stop listening to leaders that want to sacrifice the people they lead to make themselves look like strong men?
I certainly do not disagree with you. What the Muslim leaders are doing is certainly stupid as Trump will be far worse for their people in the Middle East. I am just relaying the information that is out there about their current agenda.
I think it's too soon to tell really. There's people saying a lot of things out of emotion but emotions tend to fade. It's easy to say you hypothetically won't vote for Biden to exert pressure right now, but when facing the cold hard reality of the potential for a Trump presidency which emotion takes precedence.
Mostly this thing is dependent on Hamas being decisively defeated a few months before the election so people will no longer have the most documented war in history on their screens making them upset.
How the fuck is refusing to support genocide "hatred"?
US foreign policy over multiple decades has hammered home for Muslims that both parties froth at the mouth to murder them and their families. It's only natural that we won't vote for either of those murderers. I know I'll personally be voting for the Green Party, and the only thing that could get me to consider voting for a Democrat ever again would be if the President turned himself, Obama, and George W. bush over to The Hague to stand trial for their murderous wars.
Yea sadly. Even just looking at israel/gaza Trump would do at least as bad as biden and probably worse.
My looming thought is* we prevent a dictatorship...for now.
If the DNC had a backbone it wouldn't be Biden to begin with.
You mean if they were stupid enough to try nominating any of the candidates Biden beat 4 years ago? Stupid enough to gamble on a new candidate, ignoring the fact Biden already beat Trump once? Stupid enough to ignore the fact the fact that the incumbent president more often than not wins reelection?
You're right, democracy is on the line, now's the best time to fucking gamble it away.
Well said
"now's" as good a time as any
"this time for sure"
"can't believe how easily this will be to beat trump"
"better of 2 evils! don't worry we'll just go further left in 4 years :)"
"oopsie dead babies :("
[repeats ad nauseam until the libs are dead or go further right]
But we did. The Inflation Reduction Act was not only the most climate friendly bill in US history, it bolstered domestic green energy companies so much that Canada and Europe had to pass similar legislation to stay competitive (and keep companies from relocating).
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Israel is going to keep killing babies, and the US president is going to support Israel, no matter who it is, for the foreseeable future.
Your choice is if you'll willingly accept the burden and do whatever you can nonetheless to help the most people domestically and globally -- or if you'll pretend you aren't carrying the burden, and you're willing to throw women, black Americans, brown Americans, gay Americans, trans Americans, etc under the bus to maintain that delusion.
No matter what you do, if you pay taxes in the US, you're funding infanticidal Israeli weapons. Democracy is shitty like that. The majority of people are uncomfortable with all the civilian deaths, but a majority still wants to fund weapons for them. Don't like it? Grit your teeth, try to make a difference, and minimize any unnecessary support to Israel.
There will be no leftist utopia except from the labor of blood soaked hands from those who understand there's no other choice. I can only hope that one day my kids or their kids will be able to judge me without any hypocrisy, because we successfully made a world free of these awful realities.
Biden didn't beat shit. He had the DNC machine tell all the other candidates to drop out and put their full support behind Biden and have the media machine pump out story after story about Biden's miraculous turnaround. Biden beat the other candidates in the same way Putin scored 8 goals in a hockey game.
If Biden ended the war on drugs it would nearly completely clench at least his party's re-election, probably swing the congress on over too.
Not to mention it's absolutely the correct decision.
For politicians, the morality and ethics around policy are more of a consolation prize.
Honestly, people being able to get tested known doses of various drugs of choice would save a lot of lives and create a lot of opportunity to intervene and help people recover. Making drugs illegal just causes miser and funds crime.
Maybe for weed, but I donβt think that would be so clear cut for other substances. Even here San Francisco, the public is only willing to go so far with decriminalizing.
I would wager that weed, and maybe certain hallucinations would be bump in the polls, but for narcotics and opioids, ending the war on that stuff would hurt him. But maybe Iβm wrong.
Ending it would involve more than lel drugs are legal have fun. It would be a shift to focus on treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention by treating social deficits that tend to breed addiction, those are proven consistently effective treatments. If prohibition ever worked we wouldn't have weed, alcohol, and coke would sell completely caffeine free beverages.
I'm not necessarily against legalizing other drugs, but I would need a lot of time to research it and understand what studies have been done. There's some substances which are outright harmful and people shouldn't take, and I don't think criminalization is the solution. But, I also don't know that complete legalization is.
Off the cuff, I think I'd support decriminalized possession, but the material is still confiscated. Manufacturing however should remain illegal (other than for weed) because it's way too easy to make snake oil and impurities. I'd favor official govt meth versus making manufacturing it legal.
You know that thereβs government legal meth, right?
Its brand name is Desoxyn.
Do you know what the first legal government meth was?
Meth.
Desoxyn is literally a brand name for methamphetamine, so you're not saying anything different.
Hm? Widen your scope of semantic salience my friend, I do say something different, but that's just academia, don't take it too seriously it's not a challenge.
Wow I just went down a rabbit hole... I feel (pray) so many things would have to fail for you to actually get that Rx filled tho
Itβs a very effective medicine, though. For example, in small doses itβs more effective than adderall or Ritalin for ADHD. Itβs less common than either of those drugs because there is a higher abuse potential, but there is nothing really wrong with it either.
The key here is small doses taken orally. Taking it in a medical context is a very different animal than recreational methamphetamine.
Our air force crews are often given one of these during combat missions. I imagine other military units use them when necessary, too. They also prescribe it to people with severe narcolepsy.
Huh? Sorry, I fell asleep. Could you say that one more time?
I mean we know people will do it regardless, no matter the substance. Substances are being thoroughly tested, and finally seeing serious academic and clinical research on their therapeutic uses, so that is actually going pretty great and showing awesome results (yeyy drugs!!), and I will never get over the argument that prohibition only strengthens the mafia.
Yeah you really cut out the leg from cartels if you get rid of prohibition.
I think as long as we can positively ID a substance as coming from a safe manufacturer, it's fine. Street products cooked up in a trailer are what need to go away. That probably means the government subsidizes drug companies to provide them at low cost.
Fuck it manufacture it in government labs, make it taxable. How could that possibly ever be worse than the street wars we have right now?
Agreed. For that to be politically viable though we need to first render Republicans impotent.
Look, we can't be adjusting our ideas to take morons into account, one has to have a clear image before one's eyes want one want to achieve, or it ain't gonna get beyond the idea stage.
Is this what we want? Is this what I want? Fuck yes, so we can fight for that, it is well defined and without bullshit, that's a platform easy to defend, you know what I mean? Don't give a shit what some would think or say, wars are not won by appeasing the enemy.
Oh I agree completely, I'm just saying the first battle in the war is triumphing over the GOP. It's more a logical first step than a necessary one. We don't have to give any quarter, just recognize which battles we need to face and what milestones we need to achieve.
you know all of those "illegal" drugs are legal if you have enough money? There isn't a single "illegal" drug that you cant get as long as someone slaps like a Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, or Bayer label on it and signs their name to say you can have it. Prohibition doesn't work, we have a lot of history to show that, we also have a lot of history to know that treatment, rehabilitation, and social safety nets go a really long way towards stopping addiction and substance abuse.
Yeah, I think I mostly agree. Don't think material should be confiscated though, that could cause people to avoid official harm reduction resources. But, I wouldn't want to see private business, like gas stations, liquor stores, or "dispensaries" making profit from selling and pushing fentanyl, tranq, krokodil and stuff like that. I do think more drugs with low addiction and harm potential should be legalized such as shrooms, LSD, and probably most psychedelics.
All that being said all legalization and decriminalization must coincide with massive investment in addiction treatment, harm reduction, and probably housing. Ideally, the root causes of the drug epidemic should be addressed, such as poverty, lack of adequate healthcare such as therapy, people generally feeling hopeless because of their material conditions, etc.
Completely agree on everything except confiscation -- which I agree is tricky. I think you confiscate anything that's "off brand" to keep them off the streets, but that's it. I don't want some shitty chemist making impure drugs that cause serious harm. Those need to go. We'd need a free certified container program.
I can't even fathom the rationalization process going on with you folks with the fent and other substances, it really looks like a dystopian Ridley Scott shot when you look at it from the other side of the Atlantic...
Edit: I mean, we're feeling with you homie
I'll bet good money that if he tries it it'll be closer to August
Because you fucking know it's gonna get challenged and that the Supreme Court is gonna be all brow furrowey trying to invent a reason why it's unconstitutional to not pursue a drug policy based in exactly zero medical science.
At least if it's near the election the topic will still be fresh by the time SCOTUS chooses that laws are for binding Democrats and protecting Republicans.
It would be extremely hard to argue that, but given the three clowns trump appointed who knows.
SCOTUS is extremely unpopular. If they tell Biden to throw more people in jail and he replies with a very public, "get fucked you corrupt prison lobby shills" his poll number would go up even higher.
I wonder if marijuana news paper dot com has any bias slant towards marijuana
Lake Research Partners conducted the study, not the marijuana blog.
This made me lol. Thanks
"Breaking News: Polls show that if Biden were better, more people would like him."
Deep cuts by @themeatbridge
Shocked Pikachu face
Oh theyβre going to put this carrot in front of us again?
"Biden stands to gain approval if he does incredibly obvious thing that people approve of."
So he's not gonna do it then? Great.
Next he will promise to close gitmo and support unions!
C'mon Dank Brandon!
Dank Brandon
https://youtu.be/V7nQiUl6Iqw
His campaign promise 7 days before the election...
βAs president, Iβll work to reform the criminal justice system, improve community policing, decriminalize marijuana, and automatically expunge all prior marijuana convictions.β
Let's hope he keeps it up!
JUST STOP FUNDING THE ISRAEL CONFLICT.
I would like for all of us to sit down, just for a short while, together, take a deep breath, and figure out where we're going.
Just imagine. We could be an interplanetary species by now. Instead of solving problems, we instead create them for short-term monetary gains.
Yeah but how would 8 people live like gods while the rest of us fight it out?
Congress controls the purse.
Ah yes, because it's not about doing what is right, it's about political gain. Fuck america so so much.
In theory the two are supposed to be aligned. Political will is supposed to go up when the politicians do what's right and down when they do wrong. That's what is going on here but I agree that they aren't usually aligned.
It's about doing what is right, but waiting until it's most politically beneficial before doing it
Not really. I highly doubt it will be rescheduled prior to election when they are just talking about it now.
Liberal cope. Maybe in 2028, maybe in 2032, certainly he/she will need to utilize this card in 2036? Wait wait but what if they wanted to pull that shit in 2040?.. Fuck
Lol he's actually taken steps to reschedule it, I know you probably wish we were in a dictatorship where Biden could just say, "weed is now legal, Trump will now be put in jail, and top republicans are to be killed" but we don't live in that world thankfully. He started the process to reschedule marijuana in 2022, with the last update being from the DEA on December 2023 being that they are reviewing whether to reschedule marijuana and what to reschedule it as. I assume if Biden just signed an executive order to change it, it would have been held up in the courts and probably overturned because of not going through a formal process ( imagine if Biden could just unilaterally make fentanyl street legal).
Genuinely cute you think Biden of all people would even reclassify let alone decriminalize π€£
That's literally the process he's going to now. Not to mention it's actually beneficial for him politically. It's pretty sad how little you know about politics, yet you feel the need to discuss it.
Lip service works wonders on the libs it seems
Voters don't reward doing the right thing at the wrong time.
Most Americans support progressive policies: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html
Who is defining the "wrong time" here?
The election cycle.
It doesn't matter if people support it if they don't remember it well enough to come out to vote when it matters. You see this with Biden already, people completely missing the effort they have made for tons of work that people support.
Yet republican voters are far more dedicated to voting because the republican party makes bold promises and pushes to do them. Even if it's as stupid as a border wall, they'll make that promise and actually get funding for it and build at least part of it. Democrats, though, "it's not feasible", "it's not possible", "we can't do that", "it's not realistic". If democrats would show that they at least try, voters would try. No, forgiving a few billion in student loans here or there after letting the problem build up to 1.7 trillion dollars isn't enough effort. What if instead they said "we will eliminate student loan debt completely" and then work on it, instead of hitting up low-hanging fruit like enforcing existing student loan forgiveness programs that forgive after 10+ years of interest payments?
On top of the answer you have already received (people forget by the time election rolls around), I'll be extra pessimistic and say that majority of Americans publicly support progressive policies, but may in private and in the ballot box lean more conservative. If you know you sound like a monster, you might say the nice things in public, but then when not accountable for their image in the ballot box... well...
You might have a point if the poll was asking people about race or any other sensitive topic, but people will not dress up their opinions if they don't think they'll get attacked for them. Nobody has their job threatened if they advocate for private health insurance companies.
Sure, not all progressive policies have this phenomenon, but for some, even in a relatively private but not actually private or anonymous context being asked about some policies may elicit a different reaction.
All of the cited policies in that article has a counterpoint that may drive different anonymous private behavior.
They will mean either taxes go up or companies that you buy from may have to spend more money. So it's incredibly selfish to declare that people shouldn't have a livable wage, shouldn't have access to workable income when accommodating a newborn, shouldn't have access to higher education. However, in the ballot box someone might be very selfish "I make more than minimum wage, so I don't care, but I do care that it might raise prices, I am not about to have a kid, so happy to screw over those that are for the sake of the companies saving money, I have health insurance and so I don't care if someone else can't realistically have it/afford it".
So you're saying that in a poll, people would lie and say they want higher taxes but in private they want lower taxes? Why? Wanting lower taxes is, again, not something that would bring on attacks, there is no reason to lie about that. No one's name is being publicized in this poll either. You're making up all these odd scenarios to try to get an opposite answer to what is staring you in the face right there.
People argue against a livable wage all the time, though. They just say that those jobs "were never meant to be a career", that it's "supposed to be for kids earning extra spending cash", that "if people want to make good money they need to develop skills". They'll tell you that if we interfere in the "free market", it will wreck the economy, and we'll all be starving. They're thrilled to tell you how they, or their parents, made sure to be in a good financial position before having kids, and if people have kids who can't afford the costs including time off to be good parents, that's because those people are irresponsible. And on down the line. They'll shame you for "demanding free stuff", and walk away feeling smugly superior.
It's just fundamentally not how human psychology works to publicly acknowledge what you think is good, and then privately work against it. People who do the worst and most selfish things always have a justification for it.
Some people will happily express that sentiment.
Others might be more reserved...
At least that's the a way I can reconcile all these countless articles that repeatedly show that like 70-80% of people support key policies of the democrat platform, and yet the elections seem to break almost even between republican and democrat. Districting shenanigans and the electoral college can account for some oddities, but the senate keeps being roughly a tie and even the popular vote for president is much closer than all this data suggests it should be.
The Senate is affected by the OG of gerrymandering, giving an enormously greater weight to votes in less populous states.
Most people are not as informed as you. They aren't analyzing their views on specific issues and voting for the candidates most in alignment with that. They're voting based on single hot-button issues like abortion or gun control. They're voting based on the way they feel about a politician. They're scared of terminology made up to scare them, seeing the Democrats as representing "cultural Marxism" and "critical race theory". They are in an information bubble that builds a worldview which is complete, compelling, but incorrect, and their votes reflect that.
I mean, democracy is supposed to align those two needs.
That's kind of inevitable, and not such a bad thing. The president is one person. One person shouldn't be deciding what is right arbitrarily. For the president to be looking at what the people want, that's a good thing. Now, our democratic systems are deeply flawed, so that "what the people want" and "what improves electoral chances" are not as closely tied as they should be, but that's another matter.
Yeah it's basically baked into the system. Politicians will be politicians and there are other checks and balances like the vote that are supposed to keep them reigned in. Not excusing bad behavior on the part of politicans, but as voters we could excercise more control over them if we were more educated and organized. There are too many crappy politicians that aren't afraid for their jobs.
This is obviously simplifying and ignores other urgent problems like gerrymandering, vote suppression, and money in politics.
It's not even what's right in full. Rescheduling helps get us towards legalization someday but rescheduling probably also means people are still going to be sitting in jail for possession until well after 2028.
People are funny.
Biden will probably get this done. He said he was going to, seems like the administrative steps to do so are happening.
But here's what will happen: the Supreme Court is getting ready to shred another longstanding precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine. Without Chevron, any federal court will be able to enjoin any action of any federal agency just by saying that the agency's interpretation of the statute, even though it's reasonable, isn't what Congress really intended. In other words, agencies will no longer be able to regulate much of anything because corporations will just file a lawsuit in some backwards ass federal court district and the judge's interpretation of the statute will carry more weight than the agency that administers the statute.
That's the Republican plan, here. They give half a shit about DEA administrative scheduling, they can't wait to destroy the FCC, SEC, IRS, EPA, FTC, FEC, etc. If the DEA reschedules cannabis, and the Republicans cannot lock up enough black and brown people, they will judge shop until they find one to say doing so isn't what Congress intended with cannabis prohibition statutes, and enjoin the rescheduling.
Latest ep. of Strict Scrutiny podcast ("AITA? SCOTUS Edition") has a good deep dive on this.
Thank you!
Could legal weed save America from becoming a fascist dystopia under Trump? Headline of the century.
How would it become a fascist dystopia exactly?
Perhaps our definition of dystopia differ, but any country led by an authoritarian Trump with Project 2025 underway, where the executive branch is dissolved to favor a Trump dictatorship, I'd call that a fascist dystopia.
Source?
Yeah, people like weed way more than they like Biden.
I'd take weed over any politician any day of the week.
QP 2024!
Ok here me out. Obama wants to smoke a joint with you however you have to listen to Nancy Pelosi talk about her grandchildren for twenty minutes. What do?
Dude, it's a gran talking about her grandkids. That's happy talk, not politics. It's just twenty minutes and I have better weed than 44. It'll be over before you know it. Like, I spent five minutes talking pizza and stupid bicyclists (mostly my brother, we were talking about the same person but I'll never tell her) with Hillary Clinton after a college commencement and she was delightful. If she had been able to show that side of herself, like, ever in politics, she'd have maybe won elections.
I wouldn't want to talk politics with Pelosi. Can go on YouTube and find videos of her dressing people down. She knows her shit and she's fast.
I agree re: Clinton. I'd say it's like that with most politicians. That's why their constituents keep electing them and everyone else hates their guts. They didn't get elected without charisma.
I smoke a doobie with ol' 'Bama and have a nice conversation with Pelosi.
To be fair Biden didn't help me relax last Friday or inspire my p&j + BLT with hot sauce club sandwich idea. Parent pending
Better hide the weed before they show up
They legalised cannibis in NY and now my 79 year old mother is getting high at parties. Thanks Obama.
I hope Republicans get behind it and reap benefits too. Rescheduling shouldn't end up another political victim like health care was.
Wouldn't it be great if we got more bipartisanship and improved our country for everyone? They call me a dreamer
But you're not...
He'd be the only one.
Rescheduling is a far cry from legalizing. It really shouldn't matter that much to voters unless he legalizes.
Unfortunately the scheduling is in the way to becoming legal because it's been such a roadblock for so long.
The presidential debate should be two candidates chilling and smoking a blunt
JFC, can you imagine how insufferable that would be? Biden falls asleep on the couch with a half-eaten pint of ice cream. DeSantis and Trump are debating their favorite isekai, but they're only arguing about which one has hotter girls. Vivic just keeps saying "Fuckin A" whenever Trump says anything. Haley is pouting on her phone because nobody is paying enough attention to her.
Beautiful picture you just painted lmao
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me; βdozens of young White House staffersβ freshly hired were abruptly told to quit, were suspended from their jobs, or otherwise punished βdue to past marijuana use.β
The phrase, which is from Texas, but also maybe Tennessee, is actually, "Fool me once, shame on β shame on you. Fool me β you can't get fooled again."
I love that W moment, because you can see on his face the realization of where that quote was going. Like it occured to him after he started speaking that he was saying "fool me" too much, and also that he was taking blame for the second part. So, he tried to abort mission and eject from the quote, but it was too late and he knew it.
"Fool me once, shame on... (wait, I just said I got fooled. That's no good. At least I'm saying it's not my fault.) shame on you. (How does the rest of it go?) Fool me... (Fuck, I just said I got fooled again. Shit shit shit, the end of this quote is "shame on me" but that's the opposite of the image I want. How can I... let's just go with...) you can't get fooled again. (Heh, nailed it.)"
I really miss the days when he was the stupidest President in living memory.
The way he physically leans over the podium in the video to emphasize "you can't get fooled again," is probably my favorite W moment. That, or, "...now watch this drive!"
GWB is a genius and patriot, poster of honesty, compared to the orange dumpster fire.
I mean, no, GWB sucked on balance. Whether he was a patsy or not, he was the occupant of the oval office when we were attacked, when we responded by attacking the wrong countries, when our regulatory bodies were captured by the businesses they were supposed to govern, when our budget surplus was used to line the pockets of the wealthy, when the housing market and the banking industries were set up to collapse, when xenophobia and bigotry were permitted to rage like a wildfire, through all of it, he was a bad President. You can't blame him personally for all of it, nor would I say he did everything wrong (his work in Africa to fight HIV comes to mind as a success). But he was not a genius, a patriot, or honest, even in comparison to Donald Trump. Trump only had four years, and surrounded himself with incompetent criminals. Dick Cheney made himself and his friends rich(er) through defense contracts during the 8 years he was in office, making far more than Trump managed to stuff into his pockets with his tiny fingers.
I mean, i bet he'd be surprised how successful he could be if he actually started doing good things. Ending your ridiculous american war on everything would be a good start. So would actual health care implemented without republican consultation (otherwise known as nerfing), and really any other point on a civil democrat's agenda would be good. You know, all the things that have only been payed lip service since the 80s, like education. The debt forgiveness is a good move.
Especially if they're things he promised to do 5 years ago when he was campaigning
Here you go bud, take a peek and see how it's going so far.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
At this point I dont expect him to do anything that's not the political equivalent of a home run served up on a tee ball tee.
That's usually the case with first terms, they're an extended interview for the second term when he actually sometimes does what he wants to do. My solution is a limit of one term for every federal office, make reelection irrelevant.
I doubt very much that Biden's second term will be substantially different from his first. I will still vote for him, but only because the alternative is utter disaster.
Biden ended billions and billions of student loan debt. He announced funding for HSR projects. He began pardoning non-violent drug offences. He rolled back dangerous Trump era policies surrounding climate change. He blocked the Keystone XL pipeline. He ended the Muslim travel ban. He ended the state of emergency at the border which was created by Trump to divert federal funds to build the disastrous "wall". Like, people are funny and think that Biden hasn't done anything in 4 years.
Yea people are just falling for media propaganda or both sides again. He's done roughly a third of what he promised and a bunch more that wasn't one of his promises and still has a bunch in the works. Here's a link for proof. Roughly a third is stalled and it isn't even all his fault but the other side pushing back.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
Those likely voters will get stoned forget to vote /s
Leave a trail of Cap'n Crunch to the polls
Chocolate Milk and Twizzlers was my go-to back in the day.
Funyuns.
How sad that of all the reasons to support the candidate who isn't a raging fascist, this is the one people care about the most?
Like...yeah, marijuana is great, but holy shit there's a lot more important things going on in the world.
It's not just about being able to smoke weed, it's more about the disproportionate amount of minorities who get unjust prison sentences over a fucking flower. I'd say to POC it's pretty important.
The ven diagram of people who are cool with fascism and people who are cool with cannabis must overlap.
There's people in prison for cannabis, doing decades or even life sentences. To people effected by these laws this is an important subject. And I bet States could still keep it illegal and keep people in prison if they choose to. But I can see how it might not seem like a big deal if you think this only effects whether it can be bought it in a store or from a weed dealer.
This will only affect whether it can be bought in a store or not lol..
I don't smoke weed, and probably wouldn't even if legalized, but I fully support its legalization because of the absolutely MASSIVE negative effect the war on drugs has had on minority communities.
I don't really care if people smoke it or not, I care about the people getting their lives destroyed for smoking it.
Every politician says they will legalize weed if it gets them votes. No politician will ever actually legalize it though because then they lose one of their biggest platforms to draw voters. The single-minded boomer vote also disappears if he does legalize it.
That's what everyone thought about abortion until those maniacs did it. This would be different though since there isn't as much backlash and then they can also say they have to protect it next election.
I dunno, I sort of feel like Roe is the real holy grail here. I don't think that most conservatives actually care about cannabis, but they are happy to enforce it because it causes people to suffer.
You'd be surprised what kind of policy gets passed in an election year.
LEGALIZE IT DON'T CRITICIZE
Makes sense. It sounds like something voters would want.
What voters want. Tricky pickle.
What?! Weed is popular? When did this happen.......
βBiden says heβs gonna reschedule pot! Letβs have a victory joint!β
βWanna go vote?β
βNah, too stoned.β
(J/k)
Simpsons did it
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 itβs 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 thereβs 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 donβt 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.
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.
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.
I dunno man, I'm in favor of decimalization... who wants to deal with fractions like eighths?
Do it!
Guess what he won't do.
I'm rescheduling my marijuana to 4:20 to fuel the rise of dank brandon.
Miniature American flags for others
Let him know what you think
How do I suggest a different Primary?
https://runforsomething.net/
Seems a bit late for that
The best time was yesterday. Next best time is now.
I bet he is going against guns to make absolutely sure that Trump wins.
The guy who liberals say is always powerless is able to do something good? This must be some type of mistake.
But if he legalizes weed democrats lose the "Vote for us cause THEY'LL never legalize it (neither will we but we bat the idea around when elections come up)" which makes up half of their whole political platform of "We're not them (just real close!)"
Ah, the Andrew Cuomo gambit. I'm familiar.
My state turned blue and legalized π€
Not sure if you meant that to be satirical, but do you think that Biden hasn't passed good policy before?
Biden also sidestepped congress to fund genocide. Cannabis has gotten lip service from dems for decades, what makes you think mid right Biden would actually be the one to give that up?
Which is exactly why the DEA won't
Like bread and circuses except it's drugs and overseas wars ig
Where exactly is this poll? I would like to add to this statistic
The link is in this article to the poll
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/01/most-americans-back-bidens-moves-to-loosen-weed-restrictions-poll-finds-00136362
I thought that this was binned because too many GOP types were for it.
But then he loses the +Police vote
Does the +Police vote even care that much about marijuana anymore? I feel that marijuana won the cultural war forever ago, it's just that it takes a long time for political change to follow.
I think on deeper levels it does, because it is going to mean a drastic slash of municipal personnel currently involved with bureaucratic processes, meaning fewer jobs and less money for a whole division of government spending. What's your take?
Not like any of them would vote Democrat anyway.
A double digit bump would be, at worst, 10%. 160 million people voted in 2020, so 16 million. There are just under 1 million police sworn officers in the US, so Iβm gonna take a guess that this is a worthwhile electoral trade-off for Biden.
That's his trump card, no pun. He'll play it if absolutely necessary but the card can only be played once and a future politician might need it more.
"Future politician" ... Trump turning America into a dictatorship ... ya, probably should play it now since it can't be played later. Trump's at UNO and we are debating if we should play a draw four card.
Aren't we living in the age where we do whatever we want because there is no future though?