• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    The president can order agencies to reschedule it, which makes it defacto legal in a lot of states, and means federal employees in states where it’s legal can use, including military.

    She should do that asap, because the fight to actually legalize is a lot harder.

    I don’t want to see her say it needs to be legalized and then refuse to take any step thats not the hardest

      • ilovededyoupiggy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of full deschedule/legalization, but all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why. Hopefully Harris can lean into it a little harder than Biden has.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          As a senator Harris introduced bills that would’ve fully legalized it. Meanwhile I don’t think Biden ever publicly said he wanted full legalization

          I think there’s pretty good odds she would go further than Biden in executive action alone

          • Bone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            2 months ago

            Biden was calling it a gateway drug just before entering the office of president. I don’t believe he’s evolved personally at all. Policy, which is kind of weak, may be another thing. But I don’t think the man sees any value in marijuana, for anybody.

            • Furbag@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Is anyone actually surprised that Biden is extremely anti-narcotics given his son’s battle with drug addiction?

              Harris doesn’t have the same baggage. If she were at the helm, I think she’d follow through.

              • Bone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                2 months ago

                But that’s just the point. Part of marijuana adoption is getting away from worse drugs. There is plenty of supporting data at this point. The sooner people see this they’ll see where the bar ought to be set. This is only one example of course.

                • Crismus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  One of the best ways to get through withdrawal symptoms is Marijuana. When I was getting off some pretty rough mental meds, Marijuana allowed me to keep going.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah at best Biden probably only is in favor of it for textile products and maybe CBD derivatives for medical use. Which mind you is still a massive improvement over damned near every president since it was putlawed but still a woefully insufficient, a solid summary of Biden now that I think about it.

            • Kalysta@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              He’s too old. Society has moved beyond him on this and it’s an example of why we need to start electing younger people.

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              2 months ago

              Plus this post is literally about her going to the “All The Smokes” podcast and calling for legal weed there. Could not imagine Biden doing

        • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why

          I figure you’re partially joking but they can’t really make it 2. The HHS recommendation was 3 and even the DEA kind of has to agree even if they don’t want to. It would have been super controversial to do something else, they’re mainly supposed to follow it through with the rulemaking process unless they’re willing to make a serious case. And even then it would probably be to leave it where it is.

          One of the theories going around as to why they added the hearing is that they wanted to take the heat off themselves for the call they’ve made by really drawing out the public consultation. Like people will be mad at them for following the recommendation so they want to make a big show of the fact they’re listening to concerns etc.

          Hopefully Harris can take some stronger action or legalize through executive order or something. Schedule III is better but it’s then in the same class as ketamine. No judgement of people who like ketamine but COME ON

          • ilovededyoupiggy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Interesting, didn’t know that about the process, TIL. So am I reading you right that they’re effectively locked into reschedule to 3 no matter what now due to the HHS recommendation? Or do they still have the option to just not change a thing as well?

            • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah my understanding is that since HHS said “the science suggests it should be in 3,” the DEA would have a bit of a challenge making any other rule. The schedules (theoretically) tell you what the addiction risk and medical value of a substance is, with lower risk & more effective medicine being the least restricted. So since HHS made that determination and the DEA are not scientists, it would be kind of wild for them to try to argue with that.

              I think technically they could propose anything they like, but 2 would never go through because there’s no basis for it, and I think even keeping it in 1 would be a difficult sell with Biden having called for the review and the recommendation being what it was. Plus as you said most public comments (and experts) said they didn’t go far enough.

              Honestly I think they’re stuck. They probably can’t just come out and recommend descheduling (and going by public statements probably don’t want to) but the current position is untenable. So they have to just sign up for the “better but nobody is especially happy” option HHS gave them

              One thing I wish I understood more was whether Harris could just legalize through an executive order. Biden (and now Harris) said nobody should go to jail for weed but schedule III does not solve that problem at all.

              • Crismus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                The classification problem will lead to the DEA gaining control of all the dispensaries in every state.

                Maybe I’m being alarmist, but rescheduling Marijuana is worse than leaving things alone. Oversight by the DEA is the wrong way to go.

                • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Yeah I wouldn’t say alarmist but this is likely a non issue. Under the current system, every legal state is breaking federal law in a bunch of ways, but the DEA and other agencies have not acted. Technically putting it in schedule III would mean it could be treated like other substances in that schedule, available only with FDA oversight, but that is not likely. Basically everything has been totally hands off so far, so it’s very unlikely that the government reducing the level of control of cannabis would lead to agencies increasing their control.

                  The biggest threat at the moment imo is a Trump presidency, but based on his comments about Florida’s ballot initiative, his “change with the wind” opinion is currently also in favor of not sending people to jail for it.

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

          The public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of full deschedule/legalization, but all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why

          The Lesser Evil Party in a nutshell 😮‍💨

          Granted, it’s of course still a MUCH lesser evil than the American Fascist Party, but fucking HELL! Your very bleak guess is probably the best case scenario with these fuckers!

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s moving slowly because the DEA and police want it to stay illegal because that’s where half their funding comes from

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Rescheduling is a lot more complicated than that. The president can not just wave a wand and make it legal. Congress could pass a law doing so, but they are not going to do that. The other way is via the Controlled Substances Act which is, to put it mildly, is a cluster fuck.

      In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.

      If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.

      FYI, Biden already initiated this process to reschedule marijuana in 2022. At this point, it has been reviewed and the Attorney General has submitted a rule change to the DEA. They will have a public comment period which they will no doubt drag out as long as possible. If approved, marijuana will be reclassified at the same level as steroids (schedule III). It is disappointing that Biden only requested changing the schedule rather than descheduling it all together. Not ideal, but a hell of a lot better than now.

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        So technically, the president could order the people he is in charge of to deschedule the drug and to do it immediately by everyone agreeing that the change is not significant.

        If they refuse he could just keep firing people until someone agrees.

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

          The law requires certain time frames for comment periods and he cannot just ignore those. He also cannot just fire anyone he wants. That is one of the things Project 2025 includes. Giving the president to fire any federal employee at will is a bad idea.

          The only immediate thing he might do is issue an executive order making Marijuana a very low priority offense and telling DoJ to direct limited enforcement and prosecution resources elswhere.

          • DancingBear@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Well I’m sure the persons in question will be highly motivated to follow through and expedite the process with seal team six accompanying them to work every day

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

          Nope, the president doesn’t have the legal authority to give that order. He has the legal authority to order them to consider the question, which is the process that’s going on.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      Holy shit the NSA, FBI and CIA will finallyl get competent, weed smoking engineers.

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          PirateSoftware’s CEO, Thor, once saidnl in a stream how national security relies on furry conventions flights making it to and from conventions safely, and that there is nearly no bigger single point of failure on our security infrastructure. Those planes go down and we have a serious problem.

          I think he’s right.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Wait the CEO of PirateSoftware is named Thor? I cant tell if thats extremely cool or extremely dorky, actually its both I named my dog Malcador and have a kitten named Jurgen I cant judge.

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

              I mean it’s both, that dude has a voice pretty close to what you’d want a programmer named Thor to sound like. He runs a ferret rescue. He used to be Red Team for DoD and would Penntest nuclear power facilities, and now runs a gaming studio. Very interesting dude.

              Edit: His father is the WoW guy from South Park. And If you ever got banned from World of Warcraft for cheating, it was Thor’s team that probably caught you.

          • themadcodger@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Wait, are you saying that our national security is run primarily by furries? Serious question, not sure if I’m misunderstanding you.

            • foggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              That is what Thor implied in the stream I’m scanning for it so I can link it. I found this quickly but struggling to find the thing In referring to.

  • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    2 months ago

    Canadian here.

    It’s been fully legal for… 5 years? We haven’t fallen apart yet!

    There’s some people working on that, but they aren’t the stoner type.

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 months ago

    Last year Michigan received about 290 million in weed taxes, around 90 went to municipalities and county governments, 100 million to schools, and 100 million to roads.

    • itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s crazy to me how cheap it is. Like, they could double the taxes and it would still feel incredibly affordable when compared to alcohol.

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

        What are the prices in Michigan? One of the complaints in Colorado is that the prices (for those without red cards, anyway) were set so high that some people were still resorting to the black market.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          Michigan is dirt cheap. $80 ounces are pretty common. $40 for an ounce of shake if you avoid border towns like Monroe. Even the Monroe dispensaries are cheaper than the Ohio ones that just opened, so everyone in NW Ohio still travels north for it since they dave moeny.

        • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It was cheap and high quality in Colorado for the first few years, just long enough to kill off the black market. Now it’s not as strong and has doubled in price. I only do edibles so I can’t speak to the plant quality but the THC content per serving gets lower every year it seems.

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

            I personally think it’s a good thing. Some of that stuff was fucking military grade just because they could.

    • PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Saying, “we need to” is about as noncommittal as not saying anything at all. That’s like my girlfriend pointing out that the kitchen is a mess and me saying “yeah we really need to do the dishes”.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        She has no control over it, the only thing she can do is what Biden did, ask them to investigate it and reschedule it. The executive branch does not make laws. That’s on the Senate/Congress. The number of people arrested for marijuana by the federal government isn’t the number of people in prison/jail for it. They are/and will be arrested by states. A law must be written to superseed state laws on marijuana… As the president cannot pardon people from state laws.

        Vote for new senators/Congress members… The only 1 the president puts in place is the Vice President in the Senate.

    • themadcodger@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Same. It’s been legal here for so long that when I visit others in non-legal states it’s always so weird that I can’t just go buy some.

    • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I can’t do edibles. I took 10 mg once and my heart-rate was 155 just sitting on the couch. Never again.

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

              I would be the first recorded death due to cannabis at that level of high. I would go to the hospital and demand they put me in a coma.

              • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Hahaha I feel you. Mines due to tolerance. I quit for about a year and had a 15mg gummy in Colorado a few years back. Let’s just say I had a full on anxiety attack haha.

              • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                There have been a couple occasions I’ve had to take close to a gram of edible before I felt anything. You’d be absolutely ruined by that dose.

                • Aniki 🌱🌿@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  For a while we had these 1,000 mg drinks and I really wanted to grab one and chuck the whole thing to see how I would make out but now there’s no dispensaries that carry it.

          • subignition@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Was that your first time or had you been using edibles for a while before that? I’m just curious because 10 mg is a pretty huge dose if you didn’t have prior experience with the stuff.

      • Bone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I hear this sometimes. I also hear some people aren’t affected at all by edibles. Strange thing edibles. They work for me, but are somewhat different than how I remember when I used to smoke (I’ve been using for 20+ years, and simply switched over to edibles 6 years ago). I’m also a little older now so things may be different for other reasons.

        • shuzuko@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          My husband is one of those who isn’t affected hardly at all. He ate an entire 110mg tin of gummies and felt “a little buzzed”. I eat a half a gummy, or sometimes even a quarter, and I’m coasting for a couple hours, lol.

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

            Holy cow, does he have a tolerance from smoking or something? That’s a lot. Maybe he’s one of the folks with a certain enzyme missing that is primarily responsible for metabolizing THC, I hear about that from time to time.

            • shuzuko@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Petty sure it’s the latter, as his smoke/vape tolerance is high but not crazy. Edibles just don’t do anything to him!

        • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          The reason for the wide variety of reactions is probably because cannabis isn’t processed in the body like most drugs. THC is not water soluble which means it’s much less readily absorbed by the digestive system.

          • Bone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I didn’t mention before, but I primarily use tinctures, though pills too. Rarely gummies. I figure the pills and gummies have to be similar in effect/come on, both being swallowed and digested. I don’t know if tinctures are also considered edibles or if they’re in a separate category, due to being absorbed sublingually. There’s a lot more control with tinctures. Still not as quick as inhaling, but a solid alternative.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. In terms of legalization, he only supported legalization for medical marijuana which is the process he started. He actually pledged to move it to schedule 2 but has started the process to move it to schedule 3. That process is getting closer for what it’s worth. The DEA has really dragged it out but it’s nearly at the end with the public hearing in December

      From the source that politico links to

      he will support the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes

      […]

      reschedule cannabis as a schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts.


      Copying my comment from elsewhere

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

        The DEA has really dragged it out

        Color me surprised. It’s not like they’ve made millions by confiscating people’s possessions in the name of “the drug war”. Oh wait, that’s exactly what they’ve been doing since they were established. Seriously, fuck the DEA.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yea it’s still full of “is going to” and “process getting closer” stuff. He had 4 full years and didn’t do anything until halfway through his last year specifically so the next election cycle could continue to have a carrot to dangle. That was 3 more years of people having their lives permanently ruined.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      You should learn how the drug schedule system works. The president can’t just snap his fingers and make it legal.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        They’re immune from persecution for official acts, though

        Demand it be rescheduled, send the military to the houses of those responsible, shoot one for every hour it’s not done

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          The president is immune from prosecution for any official acts. There’s nothing that can stop them from being persecuted for them.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        He could absolutely put out a memo saying “if a DEA agent makes a weed arrest they will be fired” as an officer action. And besides, democrats presidents have been promising to reschedule for coming on 20 years now, the process can’t be 20-years complicated.

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

          Actually up until about a decade or so ago it had been Republicans who were promising to reschedule weed. The Democrats had been firmly against it until very very recently.

      • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Then why are they even talking about it? They haven’t the power to do anything about it, so stop claiming you will do it.

        Oh wait! Making empty promises fools idiots into voting for them.

      • ProgrammingSocks
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Hey, we did it up in Canada. It’s 100% viable for the US to do the same. I can’t say for sure the dems will or won’t but it’s not unrealistic for them to follow through.

  • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I would like to reiterate that A LOT of the entrenched Cannabis industry assholes that run the business are pro-Trump. I’m talking well over a majority of the most psychotic Trump supporters I know are directly involved in the interstate Cannabis market. They are even more prone to conspiracy brainrot than the average Yall’Qaeda folks.

    I’m sounding the alarm for the millionth time that the Cannabis industry attracts some of the most degenerate, unethical, fucked up people into positions of power. I’ve said this like 10 times on Lemmy at least, and I always get downvoted into oblivion even though I have more direct experience with the Cannabis industry than 99.9999% of people on earth.

    Trust me when I say a lot of these people are fully fucked in the head, and giving them legitimacy is a problem. While I am still 100% pro-legalization, I am also aware of the dark side of that equation as well. There is a lot of exploitation and evil in the industry. It needs to be unionized, and there needs to be common sense regulation that is not captured by the corporations within the industry itself.

    Source: Worked in the black, gray, and recreational Cannabis industry for 14 years. Have directly facilitated the sale of tens of millions of dollars worth of Cannabis. Worked with thousands of different people, and hundreds of different vendors over that time.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’m sounding the alarm for the millionth time that the Cannabis industry attracts some of the most degenerate, unethical, fucked up people into positions of power

      I worked at a delivery dispensary for like 2 months in 2021 or so:

      • our main product was one which the owner also owned, but only under the table through a kid of his, so we’d regularly get weird orders that didn’t match what we were getting in product, and heavily push the garbage house brand for him. Pretty sure money laundering was happening
      • the safe was regularly left unlocked and open. The safe was in the cage (where the weed is) which was also unlocked and open. So was the back door ~10ft away from that, and the roll-up ~20ft from that. Any random homeless person could easily have sprinted in, yoinked money, weed, and bolted. Well, until:
      • right after I quit the guy who hired me (the “co owner”) took 10k cash out of the safe AND the wife of the girl in accounting and dipped, idk if they ever found that guy actually
      • they absolutely were trafficking significant amounts of hard drugs as well
      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If I told you stories about some of the things I’ve seen first hand over the years, or heard about from associates you wouldn’t even believe me.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    Harris is from Oakland. She gets it. There are nice dispensaries everywhere in Oakland. Even in very family-friendly or affluent parts of town.

    • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You do understand she is the one that was jailing black men on possession charges because it made her look good, right?

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Our policy was that no one with a marijuana conviction for mere possession could do any (jail time) at all,” said Paul Henderson, who led narcotics prosecutions for several years under Harris. Defendants arrested for the lowest-level possession would typically be referred to drug treatment programs instead of being charged, and weightier charges for marijuana sales would routinely be pleaded down to less serious ones, he said.

        https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/

    • Thann@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      So far all we know is she might do more than nothing

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        She might, yes. I’d still like to see a plan. Hopefully one will be forthcoming soon.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Perhaps. I’m notoriously pessimistic about Democrats actually wanting to do things that don’t involve capitulating to Republicans, but she just announced it. I’ll give her some time to put out a plan before assuming it’s just an empty campaign promise like Biden’s was.

            • DancingBear@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s getting to where if democrats keep milking this issue, they are going to snatch defeat from jaws of victory by pussyfooting around a highly popular issue.

              I definitely would not become a republican just because of this issue, but there are many people who see politics as silly football teams. I can see Republicans winning and election because “bro, the republicans support weeeeeeeeed, man”

              It’s baffling how uninformed so many large groups of people are when it comes to news and politics

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                2 months ago

                It’s getting to where if democrats keep milking this issue, they are going to snatch defeat from jaws of victory by pussyfooting around a highly popular issue.

                Yes, that is familiar behavior from Democrats.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think to say something broadly popular with the voting base and then forget about it after the election. Decent plan TBH.

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Same is true with health care, minimum wage, sick leave for workers, there are numerous issues that large majority’s on both sides support that nothing will be done about because billionaires and corporate donors. She is a neoliberal after all.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s a couple of different ways she could do it. She could start the descheduling process (doable with existing law, but DEA slow it down like they are with Biden trying to move it to schedule 3). Or if there’s a democratic trifecta, she could also push for legislation to legalize it

      She did push for legislation like that in 2018 when she was a senator

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m aware of the avenues by which it could be legalized. I asked what Harris’ plan is. If she hasn’t released one yet, fine. She only just announced it. But I would like some specifics from her campaign at some point, because Biden’s efforts have been disappointing to everyone who considers Biden to be fallible.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Biden never said he supported full legalization as far as I am aware, so it’s not surprising he didn’t go as far as he could.

          She just made the announcement for the first time in this campaign, so not stated that yet, but she has pushed for legalization via legislation in the past as a senator and called for faster action for the DEA on rescheduling as VP

          In other areas, Walz and Harris have already given plans for passing legislation to make banking access easier for legal states and helping veterans get access to medical marijuana in the VA

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

            She just made the announcement for the first time in this campaign, so not stated that yet, but she has pushed for legalization via legislation in the past as a senator and called for faster action for the DEA on rescheduling as VP

            In fairness, she pushed for that legislation in 2018 when Trump was president. I’ve seen Democrats introduce a lot of things when they know they stand no chance of passing. I hope a plan will be forthcoming. At the moment, we have a campaign promise.

            In other areas, Walz and Harris have already given plans for passing legislation to make banking access easier for legal states and helping veterans get access to medical marijuana in the VA

            This, however, is actually reassuring. Thank you.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            He absolutely promised to fully decriminalize. Instead all we got was a committee to look into looking into considering reducing the scheduling of cannabis. It was an empty promise, like every democrat before him because if they actually did something they wouldn’t be able to keep dangling the carrot for votes. Source: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1529/decriminalize-marijuana/

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. In terms of legalization, he only supported legalization for medical marijuana which is the process he started. He actually pledged to move it to schedule 2 but has started the process to move it to schedule 3. That process is getting closer for what it’s worth. The DEA has really dragged it out but it’s nearly at the end with the public hearing in December

              From the source that politico links to

              he will support the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes

              […]

              reschedule cannabis as a schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts.

              • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                So he promised to decriminalize, but did nothing to make good on that promise until most of his term in office had passed, and that’s why we aren’t done with the lengthy process to get there yet. Your answers throughout the discussion seem to keep glossing over the bolded part. (unless I have some misunderstanding, which is possible)

                And that is the part that makes me doubtful Kamala will be any different.

                • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  He actually started the reschedule process in 2022, but before that there were attempts by dems to do legalization via legislation but in the senate that didn’t end up getting enough votes.

                  Rescheduling via legislation is more direct and skips the lengthy process describe in the law for executive action. The president is not able to immediately snap their fingers and reschedule. People within the DEA / other agencies have showed it down since 2022. It’s at the last stages now after the public comment hearing in December. For what it’s worth, as VP Harris did try to call on the agencies to speed up said process but she has no direct power to do so

          • DancingBear@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            Wait a second, when someone said Biden should do more you replied that Biden can’t do more,

            But now you are saying Biden didn’t do more because he didn’t want to.

            Something’s not adding up.

            I think dems are using this issue the same as they did with abortion.

            That’s why women are dying right now in many states, because politicians are dangling carrots with no intention of actually doing their jobs

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      Remember when Biden “signaled” he would be a one term president in his first campaign, then proceeded to put the entire country at risk by running again?

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Those stories were his aides saying he was considering he might not run again. He never said it publicly.

        Here Harris is directly stating publicly she wants it legal federally. It’s not a new stance for her. As a senator in 2018 she co-sponsored legislation to make it legal federally

          • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            He never explicitly said he would be a one term president or necessarily saw himself as one. I looked back to double check again, and he only made cagey statements about seeing himself as the transition between generations. A two term president could still qualify for that. The more explicit one term stuff was from his aides saying he was considering that

            Should he have just been more direct, yes, but what he said was nothing as explicit as directly stating we need marijuana it to be legalized

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              2 months ago

              and he only made cagey statements about seeing himself as the transition between generations

              What the fuck else do you think it means to “signal” something in politics?

              • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                However, unlike that Harris isn’t making a cagey statement here. She’s directly stating that marijuana should be federally legalized

                Really the title of this article shouldn’t be signals

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Thats fair. This is more than a “signal”. What people attributed to Biden (you can dig through the articles of the day; it was very clearly taken as a signal he would remain a 1 term president) was a “signal” though, in the pure sense of it. Its a kind of political maneuver that could be a head fake, could be real, you can figure it out later.

              • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 months ago

                The Associated Press reported that Biden said in October that he wouldn’t promise to serve just one term but that he wasn’t necessarily committed to running for another four years.

                “I feel good and all I can say is, watch me, you’ll see,” he told the AP at the time. “It doesn’t mean I would run a second term. I’m not going to make that judgment at this moment.”

                You should really read your sources.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 months ago

                Holy shit you should be fucking so embarrassed. That link literally says, right in the first line, that it is just “reportedly” it’s not him being quoted. It literally confirms what the other poster said and absolutely contradicts what you said.

                It’s okay to be wrong, but fuck man, you shouldn’t of read at least the first line of your sources to make sure they support your claims when you submit them. That’s just mind numbingly dumb.

              • Cokes@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 months ago

                Nowhere in this article Biden says he will Serve only one term. He basically said that it’s an option - nothing more.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      So far it’s just a campaign promise. I wouldn’t envy us yet. She made a career out of putting people in jail for MJ.

      • narmak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I haven’t heard that, do you have a source? My understanding is that she particularly went after violent crimes while showing leniency and seeking alternatives to incarceration towards non-violent offenses during her time as a prosecutor.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I haven’t heard that, do you have a source?

          I went looking for one, and it seems not as cut and dried as I thought.

          https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-record-marijuana-prosecutor-173249390.html

          But it is fair to talk about Harris’ complex relationship with marijuana.

          As a senator, Harris championed marijuana decriminalization and eventually legalization. She signed Senator Cory Booker’s marijuana legalization bill in 2017, and she also introduced her own bill to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

          But as an attorney general, her record is much more complicated. Harris oversaw roughly 1,956 misdemeanor and felony convictions for “marijuana possession, cultivation, or sale,” according to Reuters. However, defense attorneys and prosecutors in Harris’ office told Mercury News that most of the people convicted during this period did not serve jail time. And convictions for marijuana did go down under Harris’ tenure as district attorney.

          At the end of the day, calling Harris out on her previous role in convicting folks for marijuana crimes isn’t entirely unfair. But it’s also pretty misleading to pretend that she pulled a switcheroo on the issue just in time for the midterms.

          This article spins it slightly differently, IMO, but still not solidly stating what I believed to be true. Bold added by me.

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/five-takeaways-from-kamala-harris-s-all-the-smoke-podcast-interview/ar-AA1rumR4

          As district attorney in San Francisco, however, she had enforced cannabis laws and opposed legalized use for adults. She defended its usage for medicinal purposes, but her prosecutors convicted over 1,900 people on cannabis-related charges. When she was running for reelection as attorney general, she opposed legalizing marijuana for recreational use, which was supported by her GOP opponent.

          That aside, it remains true that at this point it’s nothing but a campaign promise.

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

        While I don’t agree with the criminalization of marijuana, it’s really rough when it comes to a prosecutor and a law they may not like. Step back and ask the question, “should an Attorney General (AG) be allowed to not prosecute laws they don’t agree with?” You might be willing to say, “yes” for laws you also don’t agree with; but, what happens when it starts to cover laws you want to see enforced? Should “prosecutorial discretion” effectively allow an AG a complete veto power over the laws as passed by the State and Federal legislatures?

        As much as it may suck for the person in that position, it would be really bad for democracy to allow that sort of power. We empower an AG to enforce the law as written. But, we also expect that they will enforce the law as written. So ya, I would expect that Harris (or her office), as AG, prosecuted marijuana cases. That’s really what the whole “rule of law” thing means. It means the laws, as written, being enforced on all people. And it’s up to us, the people, through our representatives to get that law changed.

        And hopefully, this will work out to be more than an empty campaign promise. Though, I don’t plan to hold my breath.

        • untorquer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          AGs choose which laws to enforce or not. That’s generally their job. They choose how to distribute resources available by selecting which cases to pursue.

          It’s common for them to not pursue cases. It’s more common for them to pass up on pursuing a case against someone with wealth. In that case it’s more likely they’ll waste resources on someone who can lawyer up, draw the process out, and often get the case thrown out.

          Possession cases are easy and seen as being hard on crime which is politically motivated as it gets you reelected by conservatives and liberals alike.

          They have that power and use it frequently to disservice the poors/eccentrics while ignoring the transgressions of the wealthy.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Trump told the crowd, “One rough hour, and I mean real rough, the word will get out, and it will end immediately. End immediately. You know, it’ll end immediately.”

    You see, we shoot them in the head to send a message. /s

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think we should start adopting all of Trump’s shitty day-one policies.

      • We win, the purge starts on domestic terrorists for a day, terrorism will ‘end immediately’
      • Kamala gets to be dictator day one only, like how trump says. She deports all republicans to the nations of their ancestors.
      • Courts packed with 29 more SCOTUS justices.
      • Build a wall between Texas and the US

      If all of this is fine for Trump to do, then why not Kambala??

      • Tilgare@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        She deports all republicans to the nations of their ancestors.

        Believe me, they don’t want these people either. However, my understanding is Russia has open arms for disenfranchised Republicans. Please, don’t let me stop you. No taksies backsies though.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    If no one is being harmed and all parties have the access to information to know enough about whether or not to consent, and if all parties do consent.

    Nothing wrong is being done.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Shit. I love that she came out for it but this means the race is closer than we thought. Fuxing vote people!