this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
565 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2869 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bout damn time

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 114 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It was predictable that this would get delayed to an election year.... but at least fucking finally!!!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 71 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • "Americans will always do the right thing - after exhausting all other options" - Winston Churchill
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 75 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

"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.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/28/241295755/a-churchill-quote-that-u-s-politicians-will-never-surrender

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (13 children)

You're not really in a position to be criticizing people for lack of evidence, Jesus.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 69 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 62 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

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

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 19 points 6 months ago

A prison sentence is a slave sentence, can't give up that juicy juicy slave labor so easily.

:(

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 72 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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 40 points 6 months ago (10 children)

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 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago (2 children)

“STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING OR I WILL MAKE YOU HIT THIS BLUNT”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tujio@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

I hope not. It'd take 2 hours and would just make me weird and nervous.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ken Paxton about to sue the feds in 3...2...1

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

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 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What you are suggesting is a legislative action. The nation needs to provide enough legislative power to happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (11 children)

will this mean it can be prescribed in every state? By any doctors? Will it be able to covered by insurance? Medicaid/Medicare?

[–] Ranvier@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (10 children)

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 39 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Cops will just latch onto something else even harder

[–] JoMomma@lemm.ee 29 points 6 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 19 points 6 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.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Your username is fucking incredible.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›