Bout damn time

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

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

              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.”

    • spacesatan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This would have been a baby step 10 years ago if we’re being generous. California’s medical marijuana program has been a legal gray area since 1996. So what we can expect federal legalization in another 20 years at this rate? If biden touts this on the campaign trail as an accomplishment I’m going to lose my god damn mind.

      This is so long overdue it doesn’t deserve celebration, it deserves a “what took so long, this isnt even controversial”. If your partner/roommate has been telling you to do the dishes for 20 years and you finally wash some you don’t get to turn around and go “look at me, I did 20% of the dishes! aren’t I great!”

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        7 months ago

        I mean, that’s a pretty slippery slope of logic you’re on. We should have addressed anthropogenic climate change in the 70s, but I’m not gonna poo-poo the progress we’ve made.

        I know it sucks that so many things change on a generational scale instead of a year scale, but I was also pretty damn happy about all that institutional inertia slowing down the hard-right turn we took during Trump’s 1st term.

        • spacesatan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Being happy with too little too late is exactly why climate change is going be as catastrophic as it will be so I really don’t get how that makes your case. If biden wanted to he could have pressured the dea to deschedule cannabis completely. He didn’t. The DNC hates to lose one of the carrots from their stick.

      • kinsnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, if you want faster change, you should probably stop blaming the lack of progress on the people who are trying to make changes and start blaming the people who block the changes

        • spacesatan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          That’s the problem, they’re not or barely trying. Descheduling cannabis was within reach of this administration, they chose not to.

          • kinsnik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            7 months ago

            It wasn’t within reach; republicans control the house; before midterms, the decisive vote in the senate was Manchin. Democrats introduce bills to legalize weed, but unless they get a big majority those are not passing, and a law from Congress is needed for legalization.

            This is the best you can expect until more progressives are voted in.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It wasn’t within reach; republicans control the house; before midterms, the decisive vote in the senate was Manchin. Democrats introduce bills to legalize weed, but unless they get a big majority those are not passing, and a law from Congress is needed for legalization.

              This is the best you can expect until more progressives are voted in.

              Changing drug schedules, including removing a drug entirely from the schedules is a process that can be started by the DEA, HHS, public petition or Congress. Congress can just do it, while any of the others it involves DEA and HHS coordinating via the FDA and the DEA making the final call. IOW, literally the same process used to put pot on schedule III could have been used to deschedule pot entirely but they decided on schedule III instead.

              This wasn’t the act of the legislative branch, this was the act of agencies under the executive branch. Specifically the DEA and FDA which fall under DOJ and DHHS, respectively. Who in turn are headed by the Attorney General and Secretary of HHS, who are appointed by (and ultimately report to) the President.

              When people claim that Biden could legalize pot, they aren’t talking about something he has to negotiate with Congress and never have been - they’ve been talking about him ordering his direct appointees to push through the required bureaucratic process to do it themselves. And he eventually did, but only as a half measure.

      • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        7 months ago

        Our federal government always moves slowly and almost always is decades behind popular opinion, that’s not news. What is news is that someone did something, and that person is Joe Biden. Even if it’s long overdue, and even if it could be better, he acted on the opportunity to make it happen and that deserves credit.

      • antidote101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Agreed, Trump almost managed a coup, loaded the Supreme Court, and would fire random officials every other week… Then the democrats pretend the position of the president is powerless.

        The establishment left are a joke.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, I’m really angry that the president didn’t “violate the law” to push through marijuana changes faster.

          What were you hoping to see them do that they didn’t?

          • antidote101@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            The heritage Foundation’s 2025 plan doesn’t just go away if Trump loses the election. The Republican party just sit on it, and sit on it, and sit on it, until they are elected again… And they will be elected again.

            So the establishment left needs to show some level of radical action to even “return” to centrist popularity.

            The President pulling rank on The DEA isn’t illegal, and would ensure a full term where the electoral process could be reviewed and further secured, and an a number of Supreme Court justices could be impeached under a stronger set of anti-corruption laws instituted by a democratic effort.

            Because sometimes corrective radicalism is called for and warranted… Like when someone almost does a coup.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              The “pulling rank” the president is allowed to do, legally, is to order them to do a review of the scheduling. Which is what was done. Which finished, and now it’s being rescheduled.

              The president doesn’t actually have the authority to order the DEA to change the scheduling.

          • spacesatan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            Why are you acting like “appointing a DEA administrator that is pro-legalization” and “make public statements encouraging them to deschedule cannabis” are somehow unthinkable and totalitarian?

              • spacesatan@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Please give me 1 example of Biden encouraging his DEA to deschedule cannabis because I can’t find one and doubt it exists.

                *downvoting me won’t make that statement exist. 2022 Biden statement on marijuana reform Notable absence: “marijuana should not be on the CSA list of scheduled drugs”. Interesting inclusion: ‘LSD is a good example of what should be a schedule 1 drug’

                • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  It doesn’t make you sound more credible when you skip over the part of the order where he directs HHS to review classification, which is all the president can legally order, to instead focus on the other part that isn’t actually a federal order.

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            What, you mean experience and institutional knowledge are more important than undying loyalty and complacency with unilateral action?

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        The biggest thing this does imo is unlock the ability for federal research dollars to study marijuana. There’s some other good thing sure that’ll pay dividends later on as steps towards more harm reduction, but getting off Schedule I IS a big step, if not a complete step to righting the wrongs of the war on (some) drugs.

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

        That roommate analogy hit me right in the feels. Was just thinking yesterday if my roommate even decided to do the trash or any cleaning once soon, i wouldn’t even be happy bc it hasn’t been done in 3+ years and there’s much to make up for. But positive reinforcement and all right? It took long, but we should probably celebrate if it does happen to keep encouraging the process and stoke that flame. Firmly stating “good job so far, but the job’s not done yet.”

    • northendtrooper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I’d argue the opposite in a lot of cases, but not all.

      I’m more excited about the medical portion of re-classifying.

      edit I thought you meant the effects not the effects, so I agree with you.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        7 months ago

        I thought you meant the effects not the effects

        Not sure that edit is clearing anything up.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • IzzyScissor@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

        • Traegert@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

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

            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.

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

                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.

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

                  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?

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

        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

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

  • htrayl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      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

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      “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”

      • stringere@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

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

      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

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The Enforcement part

      You think doctors are going to be arresting addicts on the street? Then they are just cops

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

        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.

        • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

        • You999@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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)

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    7 months ago

    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?

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

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

        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.

    • MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

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

      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.

    • evatronic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

      • spacesatan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Meth is schedule 2. Which highlights how absurd cannabis being schedule 1 for so long was.

          • Vent@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Schedule I is reserved for only the most vile drugs, like LSD!

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

              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.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    What does that mean for…my friend…that has to renew their security clearance?

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    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?