It was predictable that this would get delayed to an election year.... but at least fucking finally!!!
"Americans will always do the right thing - after exhausting all other options" - Winston Churchill
"Winston Churchill once famously observed that Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."
Langworth has combed through millions of words written by and about Churchill and found no evidence that the former prime minister ever said that about America.
Also a Philippines stew with pork and liver. (but i doubt many fillipinos are named Jesus.)
God is totally his dad! His mom said so, so it must be true!
....Really dude? God r/Atheism has migrated to Lemmy it seems.
The guy's name isn't even a religious statement, judging from his avatar he's likely hispanic or latino, two groups in which Jesus is a common first name, isn't even pronounced the same way as the Bible guy
It was a joke, dude. Lighten up.
It's hard to read sarcasm over the net, I thought you were literally mistaking a man named Jesus (No I don't know how to get my keyboard to do the accented e) was a bible thumper based on username alone
Your joke was "Christians bad" which is as offensive as it is played out and lame.
Holy shit man. It was a light-hearted joke about religions being based on faith rather than proof and the commenter's display name matching that of a widely recognized religious figure.
Take your persecution complex somewhere else.
Bro I'm not a Christian...
So you're all butt hurt for no reason at all then. Cool. I'm glad we had this talk.
I'm not butthurt, I'm reacting to cringe by cringing.
Here's an idea! You should change your name to include insufferable so it's super relevant
Churchill really was a genius
And also a horrible racist
Eh who wasn't then. Damn near every western country was cool with eugenics. Though Dachau opened less than 3 months after Hitler was appointed in Jan 1933, WW2 didn't officially start for over 8 more years, with the invasion of Poland in Sept 1941...Auschwitz 1 wouldn't have its ribbon-cutting for another 8 months, and extermination camps didn't really get going for nearly another year and a half after that. And it didn't officially end for 5 months after the closure of the death camps and Hitler's suicide, when Japan surrendered.
There have always been progressives. Look at John Brown, violently anti-racist when most of society accepted a racial caste system as normal. We should hold the past to the same standard as the present, not dismiss old problems as "of the times."
Well, just look at lemmy users around anything Biden related. No matter what, you'll get people only talking about Gaza, and disregard all of the other good his administration has done for the 3.5 years they have been working.
This is why politicians wait for the popular, easy wins until its campaigning time. People have a short memory, and it's always whatever the last big news story is that drives voters.
I'm so sorry that GENOCIDE is close to the worst thing to support/do.
all the downvotes this comment is getting is making me wonder if all or most of the genocides in the past were allowed to happen because it was politically easier to ignore them during their time for some other higher priority goal.
if that's true, it speaks volumes that we no longer remember what that other goal is but continue to perpetuate genocides while simultaneously abhorring it and that it feels a lot like other bizarre social practices like war or prejudices were we also perpetuate them while also simultaneously abhor them.
BS, they’re ignored when you insert them into arbitrary conversations to provoke a reaction
Supporting genocide and genocidal countries are or about the worst thing that one can do. It's hard to do enough good to overcome that. I dare say it's impossible. At least Hitler killed Hitler.
Sounds like a half-assed fuck up, that's still 6mo to 3y. For weed. still gonna go to jail, still get a record, still get your life ruined, still over fucking weed. The idea that jail is the appropriate punishment for drug addiction is utterly unjustifiable at this point, yet here we are, still pretending we're something other than just wrong. Sunk cost fallacy I guess. Guess they felt they couldn't just come out and do the right thing after having ruined tens(?) of thousands of lives for no reason
A prison sentence is a slave sentence, can't give up that juicy juicy slave labor so easily.
:(
Unfortunately Oregon just proved decriminalization needs a functioning healthcare system to support it.
For weed I think we'd be fine.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm sorry my brain is on empty today.
No worries. Stay safe and sleep well.
How did they prove that? (genuinely asking, not being sarcastic)
They effectively did one without the other. From what I've been able to gather Oregon is actually one of the worst states for mental health and addiction care. Now of course they realized this and tried to appropriate money to deal with that. But they didn't get enough and there was no lead time. They decriminalized before the new infrastructure was in place. So all of the aid groups and government health agencies that did exist were playing catch up the entire time. Imagine the crunch with the entire state emergency hiring counselors, trying to buy new buildings for safe use centers, and new inpatient centers; all at the same time.
So the net effect was people watched a drug problem get worse (because COVID did that all over the world) with less tools to deal with it than before. Instead of what they wanted to see, which would have been different tools to deal with it. In the end shutting it down and going back to arrests and courts became an easy case for Conservatives.
The lesson aid groups and governments should take away is not that decriminalization is bad. Just that they must have enough health infrastructure to deal with the problem because there's a lot of people who would be in the prison system that are going to suddenly be in the health system. And a pandemic is a horrible time to make sweeping policy changes on anything but getting through the pandemic.
I'm glad that you shared this, because it's good to know the pitfalls when implementing changes in policy. I want a robust and easy access healthcare system anyway, but it's good to know it's a prerequisite for softening on drugs.
You're a legend, thanks for taking the time to reply, i appreciate it.
It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine...
Cool. Does this mean the next time the cops tell the EMTs to sedate someone they will skip the ketamine and just give the poor guy a gummy? I hope so. It'd save lives.
I don't know about weed for that purpose... sometimes makes people more anxious. It'd be better if they just stopped forcing drugs on people period without the oversight of an actual doctor.
Seriously. The recent story of just how many people have died from the cops 'giving them something to calm them down' is insane. If you're not my doctor, you don't get to dose me with anything.
And that number was just the cases voluntarily reported or with legal cases that the AP could find.
Since we have literally zero reporting requirements at a federal level for police departments, it could be 10-100x as many deaths.
Cops job isn't to protect you or I. It's to protect the people who pay them and their interests. It's just a government sanctioned gang and anyone who believes otherwise either isn't paying attention or is one of the people who pay them.
We do pay for them in taxes
No true Scotsman fallacy. You can't actually make the argument, which is why you realize you have to go straight to a logical fallacy.
...are you responding to the wrong comment, or do you not know what the no true Scotsman fallacy is lol
Neither. No true Scotsman (in this case someone not paying the police) would miss that they are a sanctioned gang. I guess I should also point out that it was coupled with an ad hominem as well, accusing them possibly not paying attention.
Pick your logic fallacy, I guess. Either way, they've made no actual argument and just preemptively attacked anyone who disagrees with them.
But there was no attack. There was no argument. Unless I'm completely mistaken, the thread was just a discussion of police in our society and you jumped in calling someone out and attempted to dismantle an argument that was never even made.
If we want to go with just pointing out fallacies for whatever reason, I guess I'll go ahead and throw strawman out there?
I wouldn't just go tossing out fallacies like that. Those are unwarranted assumptions. Next thing you know, you are just going to assume people are racist. It's a slippery slope.
You're really trying to claim that they didn't make the argument that the cops are just a "sanctioned gang"?
Lol they explicitly made the point and then defended if by using to logical fallacies.
Of course, it seems you know i'm right which is why you've moved away from accusing me of not knowing what the fallacy is.
They...are just a sanctioned gang lol. Maybe you just aren't paying attention?
Hold on, I think you're right but the cops should carry around gummies and offer them to people. I can't think of a better outreach program
“STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING OR I WILL MAKE YOU HIT THIS BLUNT”
YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WILL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE! THAT'S RIGHT, I'M GONNA FUCKIN'....Fuckin'....fuckin'.....oh hey, you guys all right? What? On my head? Sure....what? Yeah I could probably use a lie down right now anyway.
SIR GET DOWN
I hope not. It'd take 2 hours and would just make me weird and nervous.
Ken Paxton about to sue the feds in 3...2...1
You know he’s gonna, right after he wrings out and drinks his nightly baby.
This is dumb. You’ve got thousands of recreational dispensaries all over the country. States are pretty much operating in violation of federal law already because the federal law is so out of touch. Maybe change the law to be more in line with what states are actually doing?
Do we get to wait another 50 years before they make recreational marijuana legal?
I don’t even smoke weed and I think this is dumb.
What you are suggesting is a legislative action. The nation needs to provide enough legislative power to happen.
The DEA has authority to schedule marijuana, it doesn't require legislation.
*80
This thread demonstrates the idealogical purism and lack of pragmatic political expectations from leftists and progressives. There is literally nothing the Biden admin can do that will ever be enough because it doesn't match some rosy fucking dreamland that only lives in your heads. Descheduling is huge, and signals the end of 100 years of madness with cannabis laws. If you want more, then we need to have more legislative power to implement it.
This is a fucking win, dumbasses.
Under Nixon, yes THAT Nixon, Congress wanted to pass UBI, but Democrats voted it down thinking it didn't offer enough cash...
Even though common sense would tell you that establishing a UBI and raising it would be easier than getting a good paying UBI out of the gate
Yeah celebrate your wins or you may find yourself getting fewer
Why do we even have a DEA? It’s like putting cops in charge of which medicine you should take. They aren’t the ones who should be making the calls here.
"We knew we couldn't arrest people for being pro-civil rights or against the war, but by associating crack with black people and marijuana with hippies, we could disrupt their movements. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did!" - Paraphrasing of the Nixon Administration recounting the "Good ol' days"
associating crack with black people
Crack did not exist in at that time. The CIA didn't flood black communities with it until the 80s.
So that way disabled people know who’s boss
Like seriously as someone unable to function without prescription stimulants that’s how it’s always felt
The Enforcement part
You think doctors are going to be arresting addicts on the street? Then they are just cops
Why are we arresting addicts? If you want to arrest people for loitering or blocking the sidewalk, fine. But, arresting them for being an addict is asinine. How about we arrest people for having cancer while we are at it.
Relevance to picking who is enforcing the laws?
Critics point out that as a Schedule III drug, marijuana would remain regulated by the DEA. That means the roughly 15,000 cannabis dispensaries in the U.S. would have to register with the DEA like regular pharmacies and fulfill strict reporting requirements, something that they are loath to do and that the DEA is ill equipped to handle.
Aren't these dispensaries currently registered with the DEA? Why would lowering it on the schedule change that?
I think currently they're not. They're registered to their state as they're still technically illegal at the federal level. The DEA has taken kind of a don't ask don't tell approach to marijuana and is currently relying on a patchwork of state regulations to manage it because for a variety of (terrible) reasons they haven't taken the sane step of reclassifying it. It honestly shouldn't be a scheduled drug or at worst a schedule 4. Moving it from schedule 1 to 3 is better than nothing, but it's still a chicken shit maneuver.
Devil's advocate here...
I'm pretty sure the DEA has a ton of funding directly tied to Marijuana enforcement, they can't just deschedule it entirely without losing that funding immediately. Those funding requirements need to be reclassified for other uses.
They are registered to the various states programs, but I can’t imagine there is a way to register with the DEA to sell a Schedule 1 drug for recreational use.
As someone unfamiliar with the law my guess would be that the DEA doesn't have mechanisms in place to register distributors of schedule 1 substances, since it doesn't recognize them as having any legitimate use.
Nah. As a schedule I, it's in the same category as things like meth. Tito your corner drug dealer ain't telling the feds where he's selling, right?
Meth is schedule 2. Which highlights how absurd cannabis being schedule 1 for so long was.
My bad! I just assumed.
Schedule I is reserved for only the most vile drugs, like LSD!
And crack... But not powder cocaine.
I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with the types of people who tend to use one or the other.
I mean, cocaine hydrochloride (aka powder cocaine) does have medical uses. No, seriously. In the form of a nasal spray before certain kinds of nasal surgeries as a local anesthetic. According to my wife it also opens your sinuses like nothing else, as she's had a couple of such surgeries.
There is some evidence suggesting there's a higher risk for abuse and dependence when cocaine is injected or smoked as opposed to intranasal use, but the research there is kinda limited. While the racial angle is certainly relevant, that there is no accepted medical use for cocaine base (aka crack) but there is for cocaine hydrochloride probably also plays a part in why crack is in the "no medical uses" schedule and cocaine hydrochloride is in the same schedule as fentanyl (you know, the one for highly abusable drugs that do have accepted medical applications). The laws calling out crack specifically as opposed to merely referencing the drug schedules are all about race though.
It also means regular pharmacies can sell it, and via normal banking channels.
will this mean it can be prescribed in every state? By any doctors? Will it be able to covered by insurance? Medicaid/Medicare?
From a medical marijuana perspective it wouldn't change much for states where it is still illegal. It will make things easier for people who are prescribed it in states where it is legal, and hopefully for places that produce or sell marijuana that are currently locked out of banking and payment systems. This would also allow Medicare to at least consider covering it in those states, but they wouldn't necessarily have to. Medicare coverage decisions are made by the center for Medicare and Medicaid services, we'll have to see after this change goes through what they determine. They do also already cover FDA approved medications based on cannibinoid ingredients like marinol or epidiolex which are pharmaceutical preparations of delta 9 thc and cannibidiol respectively (these are already available in every state since they are fda approved). Private insurance also will make their own determinations about whether they will cover it or not, but with this change there is a chance they could, whereas before there was no possible way. Medicaid coverage is mostly determined by each individual state.
The only way this would over ride state law and allow medical marijuana into a state that doesn't have legal marijuana would be if somehow the marijuana plant itself got an FDA approval, but that is very unlikely for a lot of reasons, foremost that the marijuana plant has a large mix of many different drugs with many differences in amounts and ratios of those drugs from strain to strain, plant to plant, different parts of the plant, or even the same plant at different times in its life. It's not like, heroin, or fentanyl, or cocaine which are specific chemicals. You could never really say "marijuana plants in general" have a specific indication for a specific disease, it would need to be much more specific in terms of what is actually being given, and only that would have the evidence and therefore the FDA approval. Like take epidiolex/cannibidiol for instance, a single chemical, 25 mg/kg/day was found effective as an add on therapy to another primary therapy for reduction in seizure frequency in children with Lennox gestaut syndrome and dravet syndrome. That's the specific indication and dosage that the FDA agrees is effective based on the evidence. Lots of other reasons too you'd never see an FDA approval for "all marijuana plants in general," but the unpredictable mix of tons of different drugs across many many strains of marijuana plants and variability between the plants itself is enough to make this a practical impossibility. It's definitely contributed a few medications that have roles in certain diseases though, like many other plants before it.
In short, you'll still need to convince individual states to legalize it or make medical marijuana laws if you want an actual marijuana plant or plant preparation prescribed to you. Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance coverage could all be different (and even different by insurance company), but there's at least a chance it could give coverage now, whereas it was impossible before. This also makes marijuana research easier and helps reduce any federal criminal penalties.
Cops will just latch onto something else even harder
Like skin color?
I was thinking more meth and/or heroin but hey
If it’s like oxy and primarily affects white folks, they won’t do shit.
Also cops can’t get away with saying “I smelled heroin” as an excuse to terrorize minorities in a traffic stop like they historically did with grass.
Methamphetamine (Desoxyn) and heroin (Diacetylmorphine) are scheduled II drugs. I don't think they will at least to the same level as Marijuana since it was previously classified as scheduled I (no medical use)
What does that mean for...my friend...that has to renew their security clearance?
Probably nothing immediately. The biggest advantages of rescheduling are in regard to federal sentencing guidelines and, imo more importantly, federal funding for research. Schedule 1 drugs (which MJ is currently) are defined as having no medical value, so research funding is practically impossible.
10 days too late
Why?
4/20 joke
Your username is fucking incredible.
Jimmy eats AU sage... Mmmm golden sage
Or Australian.
Jim - my! (eats a us age)
About time
Abolish the DEA
And move the goalposts.
Weed.
(This is my 1,000th comment on Lemmy!)
Indeed
This is the right direction.
The proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget
Is there any federal employee we don't have to ask first?
Oh shit, skipping the hell that is II
I wonder if the UN will send another letter against this move.
Imagine simping for this.
An unelected bureaucrat in an agency gets to decide how illegal a plant is. And then, they decide it's still dangerous, just not as dangerous as psilocybin, more along the lines of cocaine.
Progress, whatever, you're still under a boot.
Like what are you trying to achieve with this comment? Everyone knows it should be descheduled entirely, but are acknowledging progress.
Your comment just reeks of negativity in an already bleak situation.
Edit acknowledging progress is not simping.
Just reminding people, don't start cheering for the DEA, remember what they took from you. This isn't them giving it back, this is them salvaging legitimacy. Demand justice, not concessions.
No one is cheering the dea Jesus christ
This is a strawman like I've never seen. Who TF is cheering for the DEA outside of your imagination
Nah. Fuck that. This world is awful. No praise until anti-intellecualism is in the grave.
Ok. Sorry you had to poop today, poop is gross. life sucks.
Way to simultaneously claim to be against anti-intellectualism and be willfully ignorant of how federal-level politics works
Schedule 3 is like Tylenol with codine. They decided it was like Tylenol.
But yes, I'm happy some bureaucrat is there defining safety standards. Sure they get some things wrong. But also, there's no sawdust or chalk in bread anymore.
They also saved a bunch of lives by not approving thalidomide in the US.
Well but maybe that's why the other countries don't have the arms problems we do.
You don’t have a leg to stand on, saying that
Yeah fuck it, progress is overrated, let's give up instead
Good point because that's exactly what I said and you're super smart for understanding my comment.
Thanks!
imagine things getting better for people. what a bunch of bootlickers.
It was predictable that this would get delayed to an election year.... but at least fucking finally!!!
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/28/241295755/a-churchill-quote-that-u-s-politicians-will-never-surrender
You're not really in a position to be criticizing people for lack of evidence, Jesus.
No, no! That's not Jesus, that's Jésus. He makes excellent menudo
Menudo?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menudo_(soup)
Also a Philippines stew with pork and liver. (but i doubt many fillipinos are named Jesus.)
God is totally his dad! His mom said so, so it must be true!
....Really dude? God r/Atheism has migrated to Lemmy it seems.
The guy's name isn't even a religious statement, judging from his avatar he's likely hispanic or latino, two groups in which Jesus is a common first name, isn't even pronounced the same way as the Bible guy
It was a joke, dude. Lighten up.
It's hard to read sarcasm over the net, I thought you were literally mistaking a man named Jesus (No I don't know how to get my keyboard to do the accented e) was a bible thumper based on username alone
Your joke was "Christians bad" which is as offensive as it is played out and lame.
Holy shit man. It was a light-hearted joke about religions being based on faith rather than proof and the commenter's display name matching that of a widely recognized religious figure.
Take your persecution complex somewhere else.
Bro I'm not a Christian...
So you're all butt hurt for no reason at all then. Cool. I'm glad we had this talk.
I'm not butthurt, I'm reacting to cringe by cringing.
Here's an idea! You should change your name to include insufferable so it's super relevant
Churchill really was a genius
And also a horrible racist
Eh who wasn't then. Damn near every western country was cool with eugenics. Though Dachau opened less than 3 months after Hitler was appointed in Jan 1933, WW2 didn't officially start for over 8 more years, with the invasion of Poland in Sept 1941...Auschwitz 1 wouldn't have its ribbon-cutting for another 8 months, and extermination camps didn't really get going for nearly another year and a half after that. And it didn't officially end for 5 months after the closure of the death camps and Hitler's suicide, when Japan surrendered.
There have always been progressives. Look at John Brown, violently anti-racist when most of society accepted a racial caste system as normal. We should hold the past to the same standard as the present, not dismiss old problems as "of the times."
Well, just look at lemmy users around anything Biden related. No matter what, you'll get people only talking about Gaza, and disregard all of the other good his administration has done for the 3.5 years they have been working.
This is why politicians wait for the popular, easy wins until its campaigning time. People have a short memory, and it's always whatever the last big news story is that drives voters.
I'm so sorry that GENOCIDE is close to the worst thing to support/do.
all the downvotes this comment is getting is making me wonder if all or most of the genocides in the past were allowed to happen because it was politically easier to ignore them during their time for some other higher priority goal.
if that's true, it speaks volumes that we no longer remember what that other goal is but continue to perpetuate genocides while simultaneously abhorring it and that it feels a lot like other bizarre social practices like war or prejudices were we also perpetuate them while also simultaneously abhor them.
BS, they’re ignored when you insert them into arbitrary conversations to provoke a reaction
Supporting genocide and genocidal countries are or about the worst thing that one can do. It's hard to do enough good to overcome that. I dare say it's impossible. At least Hitler killed Hitler.
Sounds like a half-assed fuck up, that's still 6mo to 3y. For weed. still gonna go to jail, still get a record, still get your life ruined, still over fucking weed. The idea that jail is the appropriate punishment for drug addiction is utterly unjustifiable at this point, yet here we are, still pretending we're something other than just wrong. Sunk cost fallacy I guess. Guess they felt they couldn't just come out and do the right thing after having ruined tens(?) of thousands of lives for no reason
A prison sentence is a slave sentence, can't give up that juicy juicy slave labor so easily.
:(
Unfortunately Oregon just proved decriminalization needs a functioning healthcare system to support it.
For weed I think we'd be fine.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm sorry my brain is on empty today.
No worries. Stay safe and sleep well.
How did they prove that? (genuinely asking, not being sarcastic)
They effectively did one without the other. From what I've been able to gather Oregon is actually one of the worst states for mental health and addiction care. Now of course they realized this and tried to appropriate money to deal with that. But they didn't get enough and there was no lead time. They decriminalized before the new infrastructure was in place. So all of the aid groups and government health agencies that did exist were playing catch up the entire time. Imagine the crunch with the entire state emergency hiring counselors, trying to buy new buildings for safe use centers, and new inpatient centers; all at the same time.
So the net effect was people watched a drug problem get worse (because COVID did that all over the world) with less tools to deal with it than before. Instead of what they wanted to see, which would have been different tools to deal with it. In the end shutting it down and going back to arrests and courts became an easy case for Conservatives.
The lesson aid groups and governments should take away is not that decriminalization is bad. Just that they must have enough health infrastructure to deal with the problem because there's a lot of people who would be in the prison system that are going to suddenly be in the health system. And a pandemic is a horrible time to make sweeping policy changes on anything but getting through the pandemic.
I'm glad that you shared this, because it's good to know the pitfalls when implementing changes in policy. I want a robust and easy access healthcare system anyway, but it's good to know it's a prerequisite for softening on drugs.
You're a legend, thanks for taking the time to reply, i appreciate it.
Cool. Does this mean the next time the cops tell the EMTs to sedate someone they will skip the ketamine and just give the poor guy a gummy? I hope so. It'd save lives.
I don't know about weed for that purpose... sometimes makes people more anxious. It'd be better if they just stopped forcing drugs on people period without the oversight of an actual doctor.
Seriously. The recent story of just how many people have died from the cops 'giving them something to calm them down' is insane. If you're not my doctor, you don't get to dose me with anything.
And that number was just the cases voluntarily reported or with legal cases that the AP could find.
Since we have literally zero reporting requirements at a federal level for police departments, it could be 10-100x as many deaths.
Cops job isn't to protect you or I. It's to protect the people who pay them and their interests. It's just a government sanctioned gang and anyone who believes otherwise either isn't paying attention or is one of the people who pay them.
We do pay for them in taxes
No true Scotsman fallacy. You can't actually make the argument, which is why you realize you have to go straight to a logical fallacy.
...are you responding to the wrong comment, or do you not know what the no true Scotsman fallacy is lol
Neither. No true Scotsman (in this case someone not paying the police) would miss that they are a sanctioned gang. I guess I should also point out that it was coupled with an ad hominem as well, accusing them possibly not paying attention.
Pick your logic fallacy, I guess. Either way, they've made no actual argument and just preemptively attacked anyone who disagrees with them.
But there was no attack. There was no argument. Unless I'm completely mistaken, the thread was just a discussion of police in our society and you jumped in calling someone out and attempted to dismantle an argument that was never even made.
If we want to go with just pointing out fallacies for whatever reason, I guess I'll go ahead and throw strawman out there?
I wouldn't just go tossing out fallacies like that. Those are unwarranted assumptions. Next thing you know, you are just going to assume people are racist. It's a slippery slope.
You're really trying to claim that they didn't make the argument that the cops are just a "sanctioned gang"?
Lol they explicitly made the point and then defended if by using to logical fallacies.
Of course, it seems you know i'm right which is why you've moved away from accusing me of not knowing what the fallacy is.
They...are just a sanctioned gang lol. Maybe you just aren't paying attention?
Hold on, I think you're right but the cops should carry around gummies and offer them to people. I can't think of a better outreach program
“STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING OR I WILL MAKE YOU HIT THIS BLUNT”
YOU MOTHERFUCKERS WILL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE! THAT'S RIGHT, I'M GONNA FUCKIN'....Fuckin'....fuckin'.....oh hey, you guys all right? What? On my head? Sure....what? Yeah I could probably use a lie down right now anyway.
SIR GET DOWN
I hope not. It'd take 2 hours and would just make me weird and nervous.
Ken Paxton about to sue the feds in 3...2...1
You know he’s gonna, right after he wrings out and drinks his nightly baby.
This is dumb. You’ve got thousands of recreational dispensaries all over the country. States are pretty much operating in violation of federal law already because the federal law is so out of touch. Maybe change the law to be more in line with what states are actually doing?
Do we get to wait another 50 years before they make recreational marijuana legal?
I don’t even smoke weed and I think this is dumb.
What you are suggesting is a legislative action. The nation needs to provide enough legislative power to happen.
The DEA has authority to schedule marijuana, it doesn't require legislation.
*80
This thread demonstrates the idealogical purism and lack of pragmatic political expectations from leftists and progressives. There is literally nothing the Biden admin can do that will ever be enough because it doesn't match some rosy fucking dreamland that only lives in your heads. Descheduling is huge, and signals the end of 100 years of madness with cannabis laws. If you want more, then we need to have more legislative power to implement it.
This is a fucking win, dumbasses.
Under Nixon, yes THAT Nixon, Congress wanted to pass UBI, but Democrats voted it down thinking it didn't offer enough cash...
Even though common sense would tell you that establishing a UBI and raising it would be easier than getting a good paying UBI out of the gate
Yeah celebrate your wins or you may find yourself getting fewer
Why do we even have a DEA? It’s like putting cops in charge of which medicine you should take. They aren’t the ones who should be making the calls here.
"We knew we couldn't arrest people for being pro-civil rights or against the war, but by associating crack with black people and marijuana with hippies, we could disrupt their movements. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did!" - Paraphrasing of the Nixon Administration recounting the "Good ol' days"
Crack did not exist in at that time. The CIA didn't flood black communities with it until the 80s.
So that way disabled people know who’s boss
Like seriously as someone unable to function without prescription stimulants that’s how it’s always felt
The Enforcement part
You think doctors are going to be arresting addicts on the street? Then they are just cops
Why are we arresting addicts? If you want to arrest people for loitering or blocking the sidewalk, fine. But, arresting them for being an addict is asinine. How about we arrest people for having cancer while we are at it.
Relevance to picking who is enforcing the laws?
Aren't these dispensaries currently registered with the DEA? Why would lowering it on the schedule change that?
I think currently they're not. They're registered to their state as they're still technically illegal at the federal level. The DEA has taken kind of a don't ask don't tell approach to marijuana and is currently relying on a patchwork of state regulations to manage it because for a variety of (terrible) reasons they haven't taken the sane step of reclassifying it. It honestly shouldn't be a scheduled drug or at worst a schedule 4. Moving it from schedule 1 to 3 is better than nothing, but it's still a chicken shit maneuver.
Devil's advocate here...
I'm pretty sure the DEA has a ton of funding directly tied to Marijuana enforcement, they can't just deschedule it entirely without losing that funding immediately. Those funding requirements need to be reclassified for other uses.
They are registered to the various states programs, but I can’t imagine there is a way to register with the DEA to sell a Schedule 1 drug for recreational use.
As someone unfamiliar with the law my guess would be that the DEA doesn't have mechanisms in place to register distributors of schedule 1 substances, since it doesn't recognize them as having any legitimate use.
Nah. As a schedule I, it's in the same category as things like meth. Tito your corner drug dealer ain't telling the feds where he's selling, right?
Meth is schedule 2. Which highlights how absurd cannabis being schedule 1 for so long was.
My bad! I just assumed.
Schedule I is reserved for only the most vile drugs, like LSD!
And crack... But not powder cocaine.
I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with the types of people who tend to use one or the other.
I mean, cocaine hydrochloride (aka powder cocaine) does have medical uses. No, seriously. In the form of a nasal spray before certain kinds of nasal surgeries as a local anesthetic. According to my wife it also opens your sinuses like nothing else, as she's had a couple of such surgeries.
There is some evidence suggesting there's a higher risk for abuse and dependence when cocaine is injected or smoked as opposed to intranasal use, but the research there is kinda limited. While the racial angle is certainly relevant, that there is no accepted medical use for cocaine base (aka crack) but there is for cocaine hydrochloride probably also plays a part in why crack is in the "no medical uses" schedule and cocaine hydrochloride is in the same schedule as fentanyl (you know, the one for highly abusable drugs that do have accepted medical applications). The laws calling out crack specifically as opposed to merely referencing the drug schedules are all about race though.
It also means regular pharmacies can sell it, and via normal banking channels.
will this mean it can be prescribed in every state? By any doctors? Will it be able to covered by insurance? Medicaid/Medicare?
From a medical marijuana perspective it wouldn't change much for states where it is still illegal. It will make things easier for people who are prescribed it in states where it is legal, and hopefully for places that produce or sell marijuana that are currently locked out of banking and payment systems. This would also allow Medicare to at least consider covering it in those states, but they wouldn't necessarily have to. Medicare coverage decisions are made by the center for Medicare and Medicaid services, we'll have to see after this change goes through what they determine. They do also already cover FDA approved medications based on cannibinoid ingredients like marinol or epidiolex which are pharmaceutical preparations of delta 9 thc and cannibidiol respectively (these are already available in every state since they are fda approved). Private insurance also will make their own determinations about whether they will cover it or not, but with this change there is a chance they could, whereas before there was no possible way. Medicaid coverage is mostly determined by each individual state.
The only way this would over ride state law and allow medical marijuana into a state that doesn't have legal marijuana would be if somehow the marijuana plant itself got an FDA approval, but that is very unlikely for a lot of reasons, foremost that the marijuana plant has a large mix of many different drugs with many differences in amounts and ratios of those drugs from strain to strain, plant to plant, different parts of the plant, or even the same plant at different times in its life. It's not like, heroin, or fentanyl, or cocaine which are specific chemicals. You could never really say "marijuana plants in general" have a specific indication for a specific disease, it would need to be much more specific in terms of what is actually being given, and only that would have the evidence and therefore the FDA approval. Like take epidiolex/cannibidiol for instance, a single chemical, 25 mg/kg/day was found effective as an add on therapy to another primary therapy for reduction in seizure frequency in children with Lennox gestaut syndrome and dravet syndrome. That's the specific indication and dosage that the FDA agrees is effective based on the evidence. Lots of other reasons too you'd never see an FDA approval for "all marijuana plants in general," but the unpredictable mix of tons of different drugs across many many strains of marijuana plants and variability between the plants itself is enough to make this a practical impossibility. It's definitely contributed a few medications that have roles in certain diseases though, like many other plants before it.
In short, you'll still need to convince individual states to legalize it or make medical marijuana laws if you want an actual marijuana plant or plant preparation prescribed to you. Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance coverage could all be different (and even different by insurance company), but there's at least a chance it could give coverage now, whereas it was impossible before. This also makes marijuana research easier and helps reduce any federal criminal penalties.
Cops will just latch onto something else even harder
Like skin color?
I was thinking more meth and/or heroin but hey
If it’s like oxy and primarily affects white folks, they won’t do shit.
Also cops can’t get away with saying “I smelled heroin” as an excuse to terrorize minorities in a traffic stop like they historically did with grass.
Methamphetamine (Desoxyn) and heroin (Diacetylmorphine) are scheduled II drugs. I don't think they will at least to the same level as Marijuana since it was previously classified as scheduled I (no medical use)
What does that mean for...my friend...that has to renew their security clearance?
Probably nothing immediately. The biggest advantages of rescheduling are in regard to federal sentencing guidelines and, imo more importantly, federal funding for research. Schedule 1 drugs (which MJ is currently) are defined as having no medical value, so research funding is practically impossible.
10 days too late
Why?
4/20 joke
Your username is fucking incredible.
Jimmy eats AU sage... Mmmm golden sage
Or Australian.
Jim - my! (eats a us age)
About time
Abolish the DEA
And move the goalposts.
Weed.
(This is my 1,000th comment on Lemmy!)
Indeed
This is the right direction.
Is there any federal employee we don't have to ask first?
Oh shit, skipping the hell that is II
I wonder if the UN will send another letter against this move.
Imagine simping for this.
An unelected bureaucrat in an agency gets to decide how illegal a plant is. And then, they decide it's still dangerous, just not as dangerous as psilocybin, more along the lines of cocaine.
Progress, whatever, you're still under a boot.
Like what are you trying to achieve with this comment? Everyone knows it should be descheduled entirely, but are acknowledging progress.
Your comment just reeks of negativity in an already bleak situation.
Edit acknowledging progress is not simping.
Just reminding people, don't start cheering for the DEA, remember what they took from you. This isn't them giving it back, this is them salvaging legitimacy. Demand justice, not concessions.
No one is cheering the dea Jesus christ
This is a strawman like I've never seen. Who TF is cheering for the DEA outside of your imagination
Nah. Fuck that. This world is awful. No praise until anti-intellecualism is in the grave.
Ok. Sorry you had to poop today, poop is gross. life sucks.
Way to simultaneously claim to be against anti-intellectualism and be willfully ignorant of how federal-level politics works
Schedule 3 is like Tylenol with codine. They decided it was like Tylenol.
But yes, I'm happy some bureaucrat is there defining safety standards. Sure they get some things wrong. But also, there's no sawdust or chalk in bread anymore.
They also saved a bunch of lives by not approving thalidomide in the US.
Well but maybe that's why the other countries don't have the arms problems we do.
You don’t have a leg to stand on, saying that
Yeah fuck it, progress is overrated, let's give up instead
Good point because that's exactly what I said and you're super smart for understanding my comment.
Thanks!
imagine things getting better for people. what a bunch of bootlickers.