politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why are only 11 senators in support of this?
Because the rest are old farts with reefer madness
Of the 11 that signed, the average age is 65
I haven't checked all of their ages, but Bernie and Warren alone probably raise the average by 10 years.
That's a good answer
Because the DEA doesn't have the legal authority to do that. Congress laid out the criteria for scheduling drugs in the Controlled Substances Act and any reasonable person would say marijuana meets the criteria for at least schedule 5. Congress needs to do what they did for alcohol and nicotine and pass a law that specifically excludes marijuana.
12 signed it, headline ignores Bernie
Common Bernie Sanders W
I assume most are for rescheduling, or respecting state's choice, or maybe they're more concerned with systemic inequality and foreign genocide with US armaments.
Also, though, the Biden Administration has been pushing for the DEA to reschedule marijuana for like 3 years...
...what in this prevents them from doing their job and actually forwarding a pretty objectively good bill?
Don't you see? They must only think about one issue at a time!
Unironically, yes. They can't be doing everything all at once when it takes their full power to even force topics to be discussed on the senate floor and write proposals. Every second that Bernie Sanders talks about weed, for example, would stop him from putting up pictures of Palestinian children begging for water.
Their time? What do you think the senate is, they all just say whatever is on their mind and everybody votes for or against it on the spot?
I'd love to hear the logic of how federal descheduling takes away a states choice...
The states have demonstrably had the choice to decriminalize Marijuana since 1973, not doing so by now can be seen as their choice to keep it a restricted substance.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm explaining their thoughts on the subject, not agreeing with them.
If a state has zero laws about cannabis federal schedule makes it illegal
And many of the states that haven't legalized use the federal schedule as rational.to not legalize.
If they want them illegal, they can pass a law making them illegal. That's how it's supposed to be work.
Not states having to legalize something on a state level because the federal government claims it's one of the most dangerous drugs in the country, but won't actually enforce people flagrantly breaking the law...
Have you ever tried reading anything about this? Like, ever?
He said "decriminalize", not "legalize".
No, clearly I've never read anything ever, and in fact that 1973 date I gave in the previous comment was a random guess. /Very-Big-Sarcasm
Descheduling is respecting the states' choices. Legalization at the national level doesn't automatically make it legal in states.