Thanks for the info! I mentally conflated the marijuana crackdown with the crack stuff that Reagon sponsored later on with the "Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986". I would correct my comment but someone responded with a funny picture that would be out of context if I swapped in Nixon. ;p

As a side note: I don't think it's wholly disingenuous to attribute this kind of rediculous chicanery with Reagan, given that Reagan took Nixon's inertia and ran with it, going the extra mile to fuck over poor black people in particular.

Let's break down what you're saying there.

Yeah, well everyone has to work tomorrow so they can't do anything. Maybe a Saturday protest. Or Friday afterwork.

This part is true and constructive.

Good little Americans.

This part is mocking and patronizing. That tone also implies that the first part was actually sarcastic.

So presumably what you're actually saying, is that you don't think protesting to the extent of one's abilities is enough? What do you propose instead?

Desperate little Americans

I voted for a guy in 2020 who said he was gonna deschedule marijuana

Citation needed.

He promised to reschedule not deschedule. Source: Federal Marijuana Rescheduling: Process and Impact

"In October 2022, President Joe Biden asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to review how marijuana is scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)."

Biden lowered marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug. Lowering the classification is rescheduling.

At the same time in Oct 2022 he did a mass federal pardon for past federal cannabis possession convictions.

You’re gonna have to explain that one…

Yeah, I'm honestly surprised in hindsight they didn't pull this earlier.

Yeah, it'll take a few more foreign armies and at least 2-3 times more deaths. /s

Seriously though, we are protesting; it's just not getting out there. Given we're not France protesting...

NGL. I'm expecting most conservatives to be dead after a few weeks of us not reminding them not to drink bleach or using ivermectin to cure literally anything except parasitic infections.

I'm all for violent revolution, but I also agree with this. And friendly fire sucks.

Yeah, we're trying to vote blue primarily to stop the red menace, but let's not kid ourselves that the Democrats have also been the party of rampant misinformation and scare-mongering with regards to firearms.

"Ban awh gunz becaws dey lewk skawwy! :(" this entire time, instead of efforts toward improving responsibility and safety through education and mental health support. That cultural paradigm is biting us hard.

So now a large number of "good liberals" are hoplophobes who are primarily a danger to themselves. (Plenty might be responsible owners, they're just humble and not loud about it.)

This needs to change because the right to self defense from violent extremist regimes is not a "partisan issue."

Funny how even the gross-old-pedos have attacked 2A rights now, but of course both factions will gladly surround themselves with goons wielding short suppressed SMGs with 30+ rd magazines.

I take no issue with pacifists though. That's a choice and an honorable one. But something profound I've heard before is:

"If you do no harm because you are incapable of it, you're not a pacifist, you're simply harmless."

My apologies. It's a legal tactic used by defense lawyers. Upon initial questioning, rather than asking to see the evidence, this is their question. I believe asking to see the evidence could be construed as insinuation of guilt, at least in my area, as told to me by a defense attorney for someone else.

Maybe that's changed? Maybe a criminal defense attorney could speak to this?

Yeah, from what I know about the rank-and-file in these cases, they're till pretty legit. They don't even seek an indictment unless it's a slam-dunk. But with this administration in charge, you never know.

Yes. That's a problem for the DEA when you're talking about a small business in California because of jurisdictional dick waving contests but less of a problem when they walk into DC under the presumption that the Republicans haven't completely lost it.

If she's exonerated, it shouldn't cause financial/employment ruin, but psychological distress for which she will be well compensated. I suppose that could lead to financial/vocational ruin, in which case she and future generations should be well-compensated (e.g., inheritance).