this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
645 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4827 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago (4 children)

What's the over/under on this happening before November?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If election theater motivates this policy and makes this happen then I’m all for it. I wonder what our criminal AG in Texas thinks about all this, considering he’s trying to do the opposite in cities with lax marijuana enforcement.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Even if marijuana was descheduled, it would still be illegal due to Texas state law

I think most states in which it is illegal would remain illegal. Many states would probably update their laws in response to the DEA descheduling it.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago

Many states have laws based on the federal schedule and don’t specifically name any drugs, so there would be some immediate effects.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the law only references federal definitions of scheduled drugs, they would need to update their laws before this went into effect or else risk letting the population have legal weed for a short window, which likely would spur voters to try and regain their newly found drug

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, which is why I bothered to link Texas law, which references by name.

My own state references it by name. I suspect many/most state marijuana laws predate the formation of the DEA but I’m not a historian/lawyer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Sure texas is covered, but we got a lot of states. A ton are going to need proactive laws or else risk kicking a hornets nest in an election year

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Many states would probably update their laws in response to the DEA descheduling it.

Importantly too, they'd have to police it using their own state resources.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Biden does good thing

Idiots: "He's only doing this to get votes!"

Yeah, no shit sherlock, that's the whole point of the system.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

People play the lottery too.. so

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What's the likelihood a rock from space hits Trump in his diaper?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Much lower considering rescheduling marijuana is a basic government act and not a ridiculously unlikely astronomical event. Also, it would gain Biden a lot of votes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Also, it would gain Biden a lot of votes.

And send the theocracy into a rage in another dimension, one in which they wouldn't be sure why their hair is falling out

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

i was under the impression the president could unilaterally just order the DEA to do it as its under the executive. is that true?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As far as I understand it, the DEA has the independence to make the decision themselves and all the president can do is tell them what he wants.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ya, it really should be legislated. I doubt that's happening before November, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Legislated implies Congress passing a law. That of course will not happen before the election, and likely not while Biden is president due to some Republicans being against the idea of legalization and also Republicans not wanting to give Biden nor Democrats a win. DEA resxheduling it is the most likely scenario that should hold up in court especially since Biden followed a process to support the change(asking for another department to review whether it is a dangerous drug, and using their response as evidence for the DEA)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Kind of. It's murky legal waters.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is, but Biden could be using the bully pulpit to talk about how it should be rescheduled and I think the only reason he hasn't is because he's old and he hasn't been convinced yet that "reefer" is safe.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Oh, I agree, he could be pushing much harder for it.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago

Depends on if Biden thinks he can get the support he needs by just pretending to look into it some more.