▲ 645 ▼ 11 Democratic senators call on DEA to deschedule marijuana entirely (thehill.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 206 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 74 points 2 years ago (4 children) Why are only 11 senators in support of this? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because the rest are old farts with reefer madness permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (1 child) Of the 11 that signed, the average age is 65 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago I haven't checked all of their ages, but Bernie and Warren alone probably raise the average by 10 years. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago That's a good answer permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 12 signed it, headline ignores Bernie permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Common Bernie Sanders W permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Anomaline@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) more concerned with systemic inequality and foreign genocide ...what in this prevents them from doing their job and actually forwarding a pretty objectively good bill? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't you see? They must only think about one issue at a time! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -4 points 2 years ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago Descheduling is respecting the states' choices. Legalization at the national level doesn't automatically make it legal in states. permalink fedilink source parent [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) or respecting state’s choice I'd love to hear the logic of how federal descheduling takes away a states choice... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago He said "decriminalize", not "legalize". permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago (2 children) Because the rest are old farts with reefer madness permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (1 child) Of the 11 that signed, the average age is 65 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago I haven't checked all of their ages, but Bernie and Warren alone probably raise the average by 10 years. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago That's a good answer permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (1 child) Of the 11 that signed, the average age is 65 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago I haven't checked all of their ages, but Bernie and Warren alone probably raise the average by 10 years. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago I haven't checked all of their ages, but Bernie and Warren alone probably raise the average by 10 years. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago That's a good answer permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 12 signed it, headline ignores Bernie permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Common Bernie Sanders W permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Common Bernie Sanders W permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Anomaline@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) more concerned with systemic inequality and foreign genocide ...what in this prevents them from doing their job and actually forwarding a pretty objectively good bill? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't you see? They must only think about one issue at a time! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -4 points 2 years ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago Descheduling is respecting the states' choices. Legalization at the national level doesn't automatically make it legal in states. permalink fedilink source parent [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) or respecting state’s choice I'd love to hear the logic of how federal descheduling takes away a states choice... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago He said "decriminalize", not "legalize". permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anomaline@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) more concerned with systemic inequality and foreign genocide ...what in this prevents them from doing their job and actually forwarding a pretty objectively good bill? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't you see? They must only think about one issue at a time! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -4 points 2 years ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't you see? They must only think about one issue at a time! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -4 points 2 years ago 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago Descheduling is respecting the states' choices. Legalization at the national level doesn't automatically make it legal in states. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) or respecting state’s choice I'd love to hear the logic of how federal descheduling takes away a states choice... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago He said "decriminalize", not "legalize". permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago He said "decriminalize", not "legalize". permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago He said "decriminalize", not "legalize". permalink fedilink source parent [–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago He said "decriminalize", not "legalize". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today -2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent