• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    281
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Friendly reminder that literally all legalization legislation and referendums have come through the Democratic party.

    Biden already pledged support. He needs youth vote. There’s literally no reason he wouldn’t unless he was blocked by Republicans…

    … Which he is.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah but some white kid doesn’t get to blaze it with their free unicorn pony so end of democracy over it we get!

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Phlubba might be referring to right wing youths who would hypothetically vote against Biden or not vote at all, cascading into a loss of US Democracy and eventually the fall of NATO and potentially democracy across the world as a whole. I don’t think our situation is necessarily that bad, but it’s definitely one of many possible futures.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Ah, that would be a metaphor. “Blaze it with their free unicorn pony” is supposed to represent any unrealistic and fundamentally flawed policy goal that the aforementioned hypothetical children would be willing to risk the end of democracy if they do not obtain. Again, I don’t necessarily agree with their statement, but it at least is coherent enough.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          He’s saying the only thing he ever says: having expectations of Democrats means you’re a spoiled child.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Ah — correction — having unreasonable expectations of Democrats in the face of immovable majority opposition, suggests you’re a spoiled child.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              I meant exactly what I said. There is no correction needed.

              Just because you falsely consider all criticism of Democrats to be unreasonable and all opposition to be immovable doesn’t make it so.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Well since you’re speaking for someone else, how about we just ask them who was closer to “what they meant” instead of just presuming with your blatant strawman?

                $10 I’m closer.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  “This user says criticism only comes from children” is much less of a strawman than their “unicorn ponies” garbage.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        When the fate of your entire legal system hinges on the cast of Pineapple Express showing up to vote for the correct candidate, democracy may have already ended and you just didn’t notice.

    • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The legalization of cannabis in my state was brought about by activists, not Democratic Party members, and was passed by the public, which is made up of a majority of unaffiliated voters. Our Democratic governor vehemently opposed the measure. He did implement it when it passed, which Republican legislatures and governors have not done when similar bills were passed by the public in Republican states, though.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Friendly reminder that literally all legalization legislation and referendums have come through the Democratic party.

      https://www.kiplinger.com/politics/red-states-embrace-marijuana-the-kiplinger-letter

      Red states are poised to increasingly embrace weed. Ohio is the latest, becoming the 24th state to legalize marijuana for recreational use via a voter referendum. This follows successful efforts in the past two years in Montana and Missouri. Fourteen states have legalized marijuana for medical use only.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yep, you can thank blue states and democratic activists for paving the way years ahead of anyone.

        … Eventually reds trail behind.

        Edit: Also I’m willing to bet those referendums in those red states were petitioned largely by left-wing Democratic-caucus members.

    • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      Then why is one of his campaign promises written as: “As president he will decriminalize cannabis…”

      Is his campaign promising things he doesn’t have the power to do?

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes this is literally par for the course for every single presidential campaign in history.

        They promise what they’ll do. They don’t say try to do because that’s been tested in marketing and certainty sounds better. Nevertheless it’s not Biden’s fault his agenda for what he’s been voted into office on is being blocked by the opposition for poor reasons.

        The question isn’t why isn’t Biden doing this, the issue is why are Republicans blocking it and why aren’t you trying to convince them and their supporters?

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Well, I don’t have a study backing me up, but in my experience, promising what you can’t deliver often results in being called a liar.

          I really don’t know why “other candidates do it” would be an excuse. The whole pitch for voting for him is that he is supposed to be better than the other candidates. Seems like whataboutism.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Amazing how every sentence you said has its own bad premise and a skewed conclusion.

            Don’t ask - I will not elaborate.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I get what you’re saying on principle, but the reality is that the world does not work like that. There’s a reason populism is often a quick way to get to power, because you just promise whatever people want to hear so you could be elected. People don’t vote based on logic, people vote based on emotion, which means people don’t consider what is realistic, they consider what speaks to them.

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Someone just learned how politics work! Big day for you, huh?

        • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          7 months ago

          If I can’t believe any of the good campaign promises from biden because everyone lies, why should we take the scary campaign promises of republicans seriously?

          It really leads to apathy in the voter base.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            For the same reason we take Biden seriously: Legalization has progressed in universally all blue states, has it not?

            Ergo, you answered your own question: promises often come to fruition.

            So let’s not risk letting Republican promises become reality, such as the promise of overturning Roe… Righhtttt?

            • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              7 months ago

              promises often come to fruition.

              It’s more like he’s bandwagoning something that now has popular support, without actually accomplishing much.

              If he was serious he could reappoint DEA and other positions. Or an executive order to be challenged in court, etc.

              Both Biden and his VP are on record as being anti marijuana before this last campaign. Biden as recently as when he was VP himself.

              Bidens campaign has also fired or removed staffers for prior marijuana use.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Let’s review this as I’m seeing goalpost moving and circular reasoning present, forgetting curiously strange double-standards in where one directs their attention:

                • I highlight the fact that all Marijuana legalization, decriminalization initiatives, referendums have come under the Democratic party with Democratic states being the trailblazers
                • You ignore this fact.
                • You Pivot to why Biden is making promises he can’t keep
                • I point to the fact that this is universal and the promise would be kept if it wasn’t for Republican Obstruction
                • I ask why you concern yourself so much with Biden and not the obvious Republican obstructionists and their base whom you would be better served convincing in their comment threads.
                • Again, you ignore this inquiry.
                • You pivot to downplaying Trump’s bad promises because they MIGHT be obstructed (rightfully so) by Democrats. (Forget the fact that one GOP/Trump Promise of overturning Roe came to fruition)
                • I thus this proves my point.
                • You, again, ignore this, then circle back to why Biden isn’t trying harder. This is ostensibly victim-blaming. In other words, “Why isn’t the hero of the story not doing MORE to overcome the villain!?”

                It’s more like he’s bandwagoning something that now has popular support, without actually accomplishing much.

                Yes, it’s pretty normal that popular things are often adopted by Presidential candidates. Kind of a no-brainer, don’t you think? As I said before: (1) It’s popular, and (2) Biden needs those youth voters. If it’s so popular, why isn’t Trump doing it? Why are Republicans so opposed? This finally begs the question: Why WOULDN’T Biden support it if he could? The answer is: there is no valid reason, which means Republicans are largely to blame while the workarounds are cumbersome and even run the risk of wasting time in front of the conservative Supreme Court, jeopordizing future attempts at decriminalization.

                Politicians change minds. Legalization has become far more popular in recent times. At the end of the day, like it or not, Democrats and Biden are still the best pathways toward decriminalization. We certainly won’t get anything out of Trump and Republicans (which it strikes me as odd you tried to downplay Trump above).

                At this point if it looks quacks and acts like a duck it probably is one. To bystanders reading this thread, this user demonstrates all classic signs of a right-wing operative intending to gaslight, sow defeatism, and wedge-drive Democrats.

                You will see more of this, sadly.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  except you never addressed anything they said. youre acting just like trump cultists, where all evidence is fake anf theres always an excuse. its a bad look.

          • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            why should we take the scary campaign promises of republicans seriously?

            Because the scary promises have support from those currently in power and are therefore much more likely to be implemented. Nice promises of change with support from the people are far less likely because the they face not only resistance from the opposing party, but the people are easily propagandized (by those currently in power) to not vote or vote against their interests.

            • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              I dunno being visibly queer under trump didn’t feel worse than under biden.

              the policies were worse but most people accepted that resisting the government was necessary. if its all that broken, this might actually be better.

              maybe I’ll change my tune if the dems decide to run a candidate who isn’t dangling us over the ledge of fascism to appease his geriatric ego.

              • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I dunno being visibly queer under trump didn’t feel worse than under biden.

                Where are you? I could mostly say the same thing living in a blue area, but I’m not willing to throw my LGBTQIA fam under the bus because I’m pissy about Democrats. Fascism is a silly threat being dangled by Biden, it’s a risk you and I take of being thrown in the oven.

                • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  yep!

                  I just don’t think biden will stop them from doing it, but his followers might make a fuss if he’s not president.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m really struggling to understand how you don’t understand how this works. I have to conclude you’re doing this in bad faith, given you implied your age is pretty high.

      • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Is his campaign promising things he doesn’t have the power to do?

        A president can do almost NOTHING unilaterally. What they’re promising you is what they’ll support if it makes it to their desk. This is how checks and balances work… if you want to vote for someone who has sworn to be as shitty as possible because the guy who swore to do things you want can’t just snap his fingers and make it happen, I guess nobody can stop you…

        What you’re finding is that the Democratic party is still interested in a functioning government where people don’t just vote the party line like a borg - which results in more difficulty passing legislation. Unfortunately, “both sides same” isn’t remotely accurate which you’re finding out.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Irrelevant. Read again, except this time more closely.

        What matters is who changed first.

        Democrats.

        Democrats changed first.

        As, in recent history preceding the great ideological shifts of party banners, they always do.

        • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          but they haven’t changed, and if they want my vote at this point, after the shit they pulled, they basically need to go down on me.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          in recent history preceding the great ideological shifts of party banners

          How old are you?

          A lot of us consider 1994 to be pretty recent but maybe not to the younger crowd

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Does it really matter to the point being made?

            Oh man, how far we’ve come in 30 years. I really am quite proud of the Democratic party.

            On the flipside, Republicans have if anything continued to regress.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              Does it really matter to the point being made?

              Idk? What point is being made? That Democrats took a modest aesthetic step toward fixing a problem they helped create? A problem that runs much deeper than the scheduling of drugs and a problem that destroyed entire communities of color?

              I’m not interested in engaging in a debate with you, I just think it’s important to recognize the depth of the issues being discussed and be skeptical of the accomplishments being touted during an election year.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Being the sole gateway through which Marijuana legalization has occurred is a, “modest aesthetic”?

                LOL.

                Of course you’re not interested, because you know you’ve got nothing. And yet, here you are.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Being the sole gateway through which Marijuana legalization has occurred is a, “modest aesthetic”?

                  What an incredibly shallow understanding of a deeply impactful issue.

          • OftenWrong@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Asking how old someone is completely defeats the purpose. We’ve seen how boomers mishandled things and pulled the ladders up behind them so let’s not pretend that being old and remembering 1994 “like it was pretty recent” (it wasn’t) makes your opinion in any way superior.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s relevant and recent when the majority of the legislators who passed the law are still in congress

              We’ve seen how boomers mishandled things and pulled the ladders up behind them

              That’s exactly my point. We’re still living in the reality of laws passed by boomers - hell, we’re still being governed by them. That reality doesn’t just go away when the boomers acknowledge they fucked it up, they have to actually fix their shit.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You’re not allowed to talk about the '94 Crime Bill. You’re certainly not allowed to talk about the War on Drugs or the privatization of the modern prison industry.

        Nobody ask where Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Tip O’Neal were when any of this shit got passed.

        Absolutely and under no circumstances should you google who gave Strom Thurmond’s eulogy.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        80
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Before one of OP’s other posts on this topic was removed as misinformation, I asked under that post what Biden could possibly have done aside from pardoning all federal convictions for possession, requesting the DEA to reschedule marijuana, and introducing a bill for full federal legalization which the Republicans defeated (all three of which happened).

        Crickets man. (I actually learned since then that it’s a little more complex – it actually seems like maybe Biden was opposed to the full legalization bill that Schumer was pushing, and there was definitely some level of Democratic opposition in the senate. So maybe that piece of the criticism is legit, IDK, but OP never brought that stuff up to me when I asked what Biden should do.)

        That conversation was actually the exact point that I became confident that OP’s just here to shit on Biden and specifically Biden for whatever reason, and any concordance that emerges between what he’s saying and the truth is purely accidental, and he knows it.

        (Also, fun fact Matt Gaetz switched sides to join with 2 other House Republicans to vote for weed legalization.)

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s too bad that he’s just trying to shit on Biden. I have always been pro legalization.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Honestly I kind of like that the states are going back to having radically different systems. That was the way it was supposed to be – like if you think weed should be legal, or illegal, then try it out, and everyone can watch it in practice and see how it works.

            I don’t like that it’s so polarized to only two big centers of gravity and one of them is Naziism but the idea of it being a variety seems like more of the idea of what the US was supposed to be.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              States rights: Republicans get what they want and Democrats don’t have to fight for anything nationwide.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                ? I am confuse

                States’ rights in this particular case led to marijuana legalization a bunch of places which was pretty far from what the Republicans wanted

                And a bunch of Democrats have been fighting for full federal legalization for a few years now. I’m aware there’s a mythology that it’s every Democrat’s fault that 99% of Republicans voted in lock-step against it, which meant that little slivers of Democratic opposition were able to defeat it, but I’m not convinced by that logic

                I’m aware that some Republicans use “states’ rights” as a fig leaf for their awful policies but how on Earth are you trying to apply it in that way to this particular issue

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  ? I am confuse

                  That’s because you didn’t read the single sentence I wrote.

                  States’ rights in this particular case led to marijuana legalization a bunch of places which was pretty far from what the Republicans wanted

                  I said nationwide. You responded with state level policy.

                  And a bunch of Democrats have been fighting for full federal legalization for a few years now.

                  Sure they have.

                  I’m aware that some Republicans use “states’ rights” as a fig leaf for their awful policies but how on Earth are you trying to apply it in that way to this particular issue

                  Because Democrats are content to let Republicans curtail rights for good people in red states, as long as they don’t have to worry in blue states.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          I looked into this and found this legal sidebar somewhat informative.

          In classic Biden/dem fashion, while it’s true he has done something that could lead towards delivering on his campaign promise, it’s comically little and falls far short of his full power. Why hasn’t he tried issuing executive orders to legalize or reschedule and force opponents of legalization to crawl out of the woodwork in a lawsuit? Alternatively, the DEA is part of the executive branch. He could immediately replace directors there with those who will implement this policy - why hasn’t this been done?

          Biden literally threw up his hands and said “awww but my allies in Congress won’t let me do it.” Disingenuous at best.

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I mean it’s the classic strategy. The reason everyone accuses them of doing fucking nothing is because there’s always a throw it to congress mentality, then congress is inevitably deadlocked by like two guys because of the way the system is set up, and then whenever it isn’t deadlocked, suddenly there’s some other internal opposition, until it can be deadlocked again in the next 15 minutes. People at this point want other more theoretical measures enacted, like when people were talking about putting abortion clinics on federal land or in national parks. I don’t even think stuff like that would be a bad play. Even if it wasn’t necessarily successful, it’d do a hell of a lot to show that there’s something more being done than the normal state of affairs, which is exactly what people want.

            • crusa187@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Precisely. We deserve someone who will fight for us, and do everything possible to enact what they believe in (and what we voted for) even if it’s not the ideal solution. This milquetoast bullshit just isn’t going to get the votes anymore, sorry establishment dems but after 40 years enough is enough.

              For one administration after another, all we get is “that’s just no longer a priority,” “we’ll leave it to Congress for a bipartisan compromise,” “the senate parliamentarian won’t let us,” “Manchin and Sinema aren’t actually democrats,” or my personal favorite: “we can’t because the republicans will yell at us.” This is wrong and it’s absolutely infuriating. It’s made 10x worse when all we ever hear about progressive ideas is “well how you gonna pay for that?!” The answer to this is glaringly obvious - we pay for it the same way we pay for tax cuts for the rich, or funds to bomb and kill brown children in the middle east. And just like those initiatives, we make it happen no matter what it takes - and if you don’t like it, you can vote us out of office come November.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            In classic Biden/dem fashion, while it’s true he has done something that could lead towards delivering on his campaign promise, it’s comically little and falls far short of his full power.

            This would be completely accurate if you took the “Biden/” part out of it. I know it’s a popular myth that Biden is part of this pattern, but in actuality he did:

            • Pass a climate bill that targets 40% reduction in emissions by 2030
            • Forgave around $144 billion in student loan debt
            • Boosted income for the poorest wage earners by a huge amount (outpacing even the pretty historic inflation of the last couple of years as follow-on effects from Covid took hold)
            • Raised corporate tax significantly to pay for all of the above

            He tried to do more on all fronts, but it’s far from comical and the fact that he got that much done over stiff Republican resistance is to me pretty fuckin impressive. Example – he tried to forgive half a trillion dollars of student loan debt through some direct executive action, and it went to the Supreme Court and they told him no.

            Like I said though, I think marijuana is actually one isolated instance where that criticism that he wasn’t actually trying to support full legalization / wasn’t doing as much as he could to get it done might be halfway warranted. But to me that’s more of an exception to his usual pattern.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This is correct. The HHS recommended rescheduling, and the DEA hasn’t responded to the recommendation. They’re probably concerned it’ll affect their budget having fewer criminals to pursue.

      • InquisitiveApathy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        This is the relevant bit from the article:

        In late 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing HHS to review marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, while giving a recommendation on whether it should be rescheduled. After a roughly year-long review, HHS sent a letter to the DEA in August requesting that they move marijuana to Schedule III.

        They had their own review and recommended that Cannabis be moved from Schedule I(Drugs with no medicinal value and a high risk of harm/abuse - heroin,LSD,etc) to Schedule III(Drugs with low risk of harm/abuse and clear medicinal value - cough syrup,Ketamine,etc).

        The Controlled Substances Act which established all our current drugs laws states that ONLY the DEA has the power to ultimately change the classification of any controlled substance. If the DEA does not feel inclined to change this, then nothing will happen with the recommendation. Biden can always play political hardball since the head of the agency is an appointed position, but it would still need to be confirmed by the Senate in the end.

        I wouldn’t expect to see a drop to schedule III, but I think in the next five or so year we may see it become schedule II. Progress is progress I guess.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Exactly. He could issue an executive order, but if the DEA doesn’t agree before the order expires, it would be far more of devastating to the industry as a whole.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Schedule III(Drugs with low risk of harm/abuse and clear medicinal value - cough syrup,Ketamine,etc).

          The same cough syrup that contains codeine, an opiate and creates a very strong physical addiction? The same that killed Juice WRLD and Pimp C? The one that almost killed Lil Nas and Macklemore?

          The fact that marijuana is right now considered as more harmful than this and should be lowered to this kind of level is just fucked up

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Tying law enforcement funding to their arrests is just the most idiotic idea and I am shocked at how few Congress folks have been speed trapped if they actually can’t see why

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Exactly, was looking for this exact comment,

      So many children are just learning about politics and don’t yet understand that things normally don’t just happen when a president doesn’t abuse executive orders

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      stuff like this needs some weight behind it to pass, not just a one and done recommendation.

    • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      7 months ago

      Then why is one of his campaign promises written as: “As president he will decriminalize cannabis…”

      Is his campaign promising things he doesn’t have the power to do?

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        No one politician has the power to do anything directly, really. That’s how the US system of government works. It’s fundemantal to how it operates that no one politician can promise to singlehandedly do anything. So, since everyone understands that, they say what they intend to do.

  • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    It definitely needs to be decriminalized but that’ll actually take an act of Congress. Public pressure needs to be applied but let’s not pretend Biden can do this on his own

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          7 months ago

          How dare a prosecutor of the law checks notes prosecute the law!

          She’s done some scummy stuff as a DA but blaming her for what laws she’s legally required to enforce is just idiotic

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              In my opinion, they are wrong to do so. Prosecutors are public servants, not policymakers. The legislative organ makes the rules, the prosecutors enforce them. If you’re okay with this then you’re okay with giving prosecutors the power to arbitrarily decide which laws they want to enforce and which they don’t.

              There is a reason why there is a strict separation in duties between the different organs of state.

              • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.

                • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  “Interest of justice” is being used as an excuse for refusing to enforce laws they don’t agree with in that given example. “Contrary to the interest of justice” is always going to be a squishy term, but calling a blanket refusal to prosecute something that the legislature has decided to criminalise is, in my opinion, not an exercise of discretion but an abuse of it and willing dereliction of duty.

            • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              1, sex work, not prostitution, and 2, that’s 100% true, but it’s not anyone’s duty to literally defy the terms of their job for what they might or might not personally think is morally correct, and expecting that of someone is extremely unfair.

              Not everyone can or should have to do the extraordinary to be an agent that can be trusted to work for change when put into the right context or when they personally feel ready to stand up.

              A church is built to thank the martyrs, not built by the martyrs.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Should Kim Davis have shut the fuck up and done her job to issue marriage licenses regardless of her own feelings on the subject?

          Crazy how the “just do your job” crowd gets real quiet on this subject.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      7 months ago

      It definitely needs to be decriminalized but that’ll actually take an act of Congress

      There’s other ways to try, Biden just won’t.

      Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.

      https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

      But the House passed a bill to deschedule in 2022, and Biden’s whole deal in the last primary was how well he could get Republican senators on board with Dem legislation.

      He couldn’t.

      But going back full circle:

      Why did Biden promise to deschedule if there’s no way he can deschedule?

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wait, but he did the things you mentioned in the first part. That doesn’t fit with “but he won’t”.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        To the full-circle thing, I’m not sure what the point is. There was no explicit deadline. Promises by politicians to assert their position have been used since forever. It doesn’t change the fact there are obstructions to their good intentions. If I promise something and someone blocks me from viably pursuing it, that’s not on me, that’s on them: Republicans.

        And if they approach it the wrong way, as quoted material suggests, it risks being thrown out by the conservative court making future attempts possibly more difficult.

        • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          If I promise something and someone blocks me from viably pursuing it, that’s not on me, that’s on them: Republicans.

          If I promise my kid a trip to their favorite amusement park and then don’t get the big bonus I expected from work to afford it, it’s not my jobs fault the kid didn’t go to the park. It’s my fault for making a promise and not finding a way to follow through.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            If I promise my kid a trip to their favorite amusement park and then don’t get to go because Republicans blew up every bridge along the way to the amusement park, which also flooded because of Climate Change, then that’s on Republicans, not me.

            • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Nice stealth edit, because you realize what you say is ridiculous.

              You’re borderline obsessed with a boogie man. Take some personal accountability.

              If you want to use your example that’d be like knowing those bridges were scheduled for demolition, and still promising to drive over them the next day anyway.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Stealth edit? Sorry, I corrected a typo. What did you think I did? LOL.

                Like knowing those bridges were scheduled for demolition,

                Except in your terrible analogy, this is amplifying momentum for people to vote, which could’ve inevitably changed the outcome of who controlled the House and Senate. Therefore, Biden couldn’t have predicted those bridges to be blown up because it was quite possibly people would make the sensible choice and not put these demolitionists back in Congress.

                Republicans have nothing. You will lose.

                • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Biden couldn’t have predicted those bridges to be blown up because it was quite possibly people would make the sensible choice and not put these demolitionists back in Congress.

                  If he ignored the entire history of the party and voting base. Why is it not his own fault for being able to understand that water is wet?

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      7 months ago

      He definitely over promised on the schedule 2 reclass; because of the congressionally mandated process for reclassification, it takes about 9 years from formal proposal to the DEA being allowed to reschedule.

  • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Fun fact: Biden has already pardoned thousands of people with marijuana convictions. Asking him to pardon EVERYONE when they may have had marijuana as a minor add-on to other criminal charges is a bit silly of an ask.

    Biden doesn’t run the DEA and can’t force them to reschedule the drug. This is almost as dumb as the conservatives saying Biden needs to do something about border security then not being upset the Republicans have voted against every effort to do something about border security before it makes it to Biden’s desk.

    *the number of people in this country who think the President is a dictator and can literally just make up laws on his own is terrifying.

    • 20inmyhead@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      The number of people in this country who want the President to be a dictator and literally just make up laws on his own is also terrifying.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Democrats said their hands were tied for decades. But Biden’s hands weren’t tied when he got to support Netanyahu’s genocide.

        I don’t know about anyone else, but I cannot trust that when a democrat says their hands are tied, it’s actually the case, instead of just what democrats say about shit they don’t want to do.

    • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      President is King of Oosa. He make law. Me talk about president. Me listen many podcast. Me give much opinion. Me not know state rep. Me vote every 4 year. Me mad at gas price. Bad president.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Asking him to pardon EVERYONE when they may have had marijuana as a minor add-on to other criminal charges is a bit silly of an ask.

      This would be pardoning the mary jane offenses but leaving the others

      Biden doesn’t run the DEA and can’t force them to reschedule the drug.

      Still a campaign promise

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It was one of the campaign promises. Is it wrong to hold the president accountable for what they’ve said?

      And even if he doesn’t have the authority to force it on his own, he still had enough influence to make it happen. Obama gets a lot of credit for “Obamacare,” even though it wouldn’t have happened without majority support in both the house and senate.

  • MisterMoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Dasvedanya comrade but can I remind you that despite being a lifelong liberal Donald Trump is committed to maximum jail sentences for drug crimes?

  • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    This rage bait smells like it was posted by a Trump supporter.

    I wonder what they think Trump will do as far as marijuana legislation. Hmm.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Is this something that he can just make happen with an executive order or does he need approval from the rest of the government? Can’t really be upset about things that he can’t simply snap a finger and make happen.

    • halferect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      He needs congress. He has pressured the DEA to reschedule it which is about all he can do without congress

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I remember something around when he pardoned federal weed offenses related to him saving a bigger play on this for a date closer to the “attention span of voters who care about this” range

    I don’t know how likely it is but I know it’d be fucking hilarious to watch Republicans start blaming Trump losing on the weed vote.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    7 months ago

    Democrats when Democrats don’t use their powers to do what they promised: “Um akshully it has to pass congress and guess what all dem republicans are blocking the bills so really biden’s hands are tied and it’s your fault for not voting enough”

    Also Democrats: “lmao lets shove thousands of bombs to Israel and run security defense exercises against the Houthis without congressional approval”

    Meanwhile Republicans: “executive privilege and unconstitutional orders go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr”