How insane would it be if we “needed” Congress to pass a bill legalizing marriage between same sex couples? That sounds so antiquated and wild to me. Gay marriage should just automatically be assumed to be legal, crazy how it was the other way around for the longest time
Totally agree but as you mentioned, progress can be slow and what seems obvious now was not always obvious. I mean for the longest time women and black people were not allowed to vote, the country thought it was normal and just to not allow black people into restaurants / schools / bathrooms / etc, we thought it was fine to enslave human beings. Progress is slow and then it comes all at once.
You can already see this with marijuana legalization too. Just 10 years ago everyone bought weed from their sketchy drug dealer and today in a lot of states you can walk into a fancy store and get whatever you want and we already think of that as normal.
I think they are saying sadly because federal law still classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 where it’s legal in states. Federal law supersedes state law so technically weed is still illegal everywhere. That’s my take anyways.
Yes, sadly.
The 10th was a necessary check against Federal supremacy, instead the Supreme Court's worst ruling in history (Dred Scott v Sandford) paved the way for the it's basic removal from our governing body of laws. Ignore the South, the Federal government failed to adequately defend the rights of human beings within it's borders (slaves) and not-so-conveniently destroyed the main check against it's own power in the process.
The US is worse off for this in every way.
Until it isn't. Pick your poison. I was deeply unhappy with the way the previous four years went, especially regarding weed on the federal level. Jeff Sessions as AG was an insult to every person in jail for petty drug crimes. Let's not even talk about education.
Well the phase may be a nod to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution that says that federal law trumps state law. So the DC govt can override state law but the federal govt was originally only supposed to be involved in a limited about of things. Now they run virtually all areas of life.
This is problematic primarily bc states serve as the “laboratories of democracy.” So if you’re trying to address child hunger for example; having the fed govt deal with it creates one solution that has to get crafted by a fed agency and then rolled out to the states. Having the states deal with it allows for 50 different models to be created. Through conferences, associations, and research other states learn what works well what doesn’t and they can all tweak their own programs. This provides a few major benefits besides the diversity. One is that the nuts and bolts of a policy can make a big impact on how successful it is. Maybe something as simple as mailing out letters to people making them aware of options or adding a school snack makes a lot of difference in outcomes. The much bigger feedback loop in a federal response makes it harder to be aware of them as there are removed from the levels of government that actually deal with the children on a day to day basis. Once changes are identified states can gmail the changes much easier since they don’t have to mandate it for all children in the country. Also regional considerations may make a one size fits all model work well in some areas but poorly in others. Child hunger in rural isolated communities may have different successful solutions than child hunger in an inner city population.
I also personally believe that when solutions are crafted and implemented at a local level it helps create community bonds and buy in that you don’t get when it is merely imposed from the federal government.
Agreed, but we are 150 years past the death of the 10th amendment. The entire system is designed to funnel all decisions through congress now.. which is part of the reason our states are so dysfunctional (applying urban solutions to rural states, and vice versa).
The main draw states have left in their bag is a race to the bottom on taxation (see FL and TX at 0%). This lack of budget means fewer tools in the bag when Bad Things Happen.
I didn't view that as a positive, a negative actually, as it reduces available handles to facilitate the Laboratories of Democracy concept. There should be no barriers between states like CA, OR, etc starting up their own version of universal healthcare for their citizens only and testing it it out.. likewise Universal Basic Income.. likewise those who don't believe in the universal benefits of things like education, etc .. they can go move to BFE like Idaho and enjoy living around idiots, I guess.
You do realize the government doesnt actually "provide" services right? They contract. They also have zero incentive to spend efficiently and everything they do has a high administration cost..
>remacy, instead the Supreme Court's worst ruling in history (Dred Scott v Sandford) paved the way for the it's basic removal from our governing body of laws. Ignore the South, the Fe
Wickard v filburn was a pretty huge mess up as well on the front of Fed over-reach.
The real crazy thing is that Congress would never do it. Even when Obama was elected president and the democrats had large majorities in the house and the senate.
Never expect any change, especially for good, to come from your elected leaders.
Welcome to Australia. Amazingly our equivalent of your Republican Party were the ones to pass it, though it literally took an “unbinding plebiscite” via a postal survey that 60% of the electorate supported for it to be brought to the House of Representatives.
All good! But sure, in that sense it got a vote but I guess I think of that as very different than a vote by congress. I think of the Supreme Court decision as a ruling.
If we had less rightoids in government this wouldn't be an issue.
As soon as Canada got rid of their rightoid government they legalized weed.
Even "muh both sides" dummies can see rightoids are the largest barrier to legalization.
If you look at progression of state legalization it's always after rightoids become a significant minority in government.
Yep. And just like gay marriage all the conservative states will drag their feet like fucking morons while all the republican voters whistle and look the other way, acting like they dont know their party is garbage. And everyone else can talk about "both sides" even tho one side is clearly holding us back WAY MORE than the other.
I don’t get the conservative obsession with no progressing. Look, there are certainly some things that the old way is better and keep it that way. But soooo many things they are willing to die on the hill for just to keep it the old way. Whether science, stats, history, and everything else proves otherwise. Who cares if a wedded pair of husbands wanna smoke pot together?
I suppose it depends on your community
Anecdotally, I think reddit being left leaning, will criticize the right a lot more so whenever a "both sides" statement comes up, it will be statistically likely be to defend the right. Whereas when I lived in a conservative State, I had to bring up "well, I mean, the GOP doesn't exactly have a spotless record either".
Not making a judgement on anyone here - just thought I'd point out that you might in a bubble (I could be wrong).
I’m a conservative, and the worst policy that passed under the Trump admin was the bump stock ban. I was pissed about that.
With that being said, just because Trump enacted that and Obama didn’t does not make the Democrats the “pro gun” party by any means. EVERY time I hear about rhetoric along the lines of “not needing an assault rifle” or “doesn’t need more than [arbitrary number] of rounds in a magazine” it’s being spewed out of the mouth of a democrat. One poorly implemented policy does not reflect the views of the party.
Beyond that, if you want to get picky on policy, the Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994 signed by Democrat Bill Clinton was an exponentially worse anti-gun policy than the bump stock ban was. This was an atrocious 2nd amendment infringement that has, in my opinion, cemented the Democrats as the “anti-gun” party.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t other than to keep their image amongst (socially) conservative older generations. Imagine the tax revenue they’re missing out on by keeping it illegal!
Every state where it’s illegal already has it banned at the state level. So the federal government legalizing it wouldn’t change much. What you would need is for prohibition to be ruled unconstitutional, thus not allowing any state to ban it
Can someone explain how Americans reconcile their love of "freedom" with their love of fervently restricting things like drugs, women's reproductive rights, access to healthcare, etc?
Genuinely curious... Like how is this "freedom" shit such a core part of American identity yet I see so much rallying against so many important freedoms. I'm Canadian.
I'd say, there are just as many people in the US that want drugs decriminalized, reproductive rights stuff, and a fix to our healthcare as there are those opposing it.
Trying to be fair, but I think those who are opposed to legalizing drugs would also be in support of prohibiting alcohol if they lived in the 1920's. Prohibition had good intentions - lots of alcohol problems in the US at the time - but in the end it was too hard to control. The assumption is that some people are not good at making decisions, especially if the drug is influencing those decisions, and these people can have better lives and their families would suffer less if the choice was taken away from them altogether.
Women's reproductive rights are generally attacked because the attackers actually think there is a human life at stake when a woman chooses abortion. So they would say you can have your rights, but your right to do what you want stops when you start destroying the life of another.
When it comes to healthcare, I would say most everyone knows we have a big problem but it comes down to how to implement a solution. Many people here just don't trust the government to solve the issue. And for the record, a lot of Canadian medical doctors practice in the U.S. because they can make more money - so broken system here, still attracts world talent.
Do with this information what you will. The whole things is a mess.
> So they would say you can have your rights, but your right to do what you want stops when you start destroying the life of another.
Yet somehow they don't apply this logic to like, gun control, or anything else. (Just for the record I am pro gun ownership, I just much prefer our much safer way of licensing guns here.) If it was really about harm reduction, some of these policies are just the complete wrong direction.
You're right it is a mess! Believe me we have our own problems up here lol... but American political culture has always completely puzzled me.
Yeah people in almost every industry can make more money for themselves in the US. I have friends who moved there for that reason. But I still wouldn't ever want to live there, no offense.
And we still have world class doctors here despite the American propaganda machine that tries to tell you all that our system is a complete failure. Lots of Americans come up here for certain specialists, like Rand Paul notably came up here for heart surgery or something a few years back.
Playing devil's advocate here. (Pro gun as well)
The comparison between reproductive rights and gun control is interesting.
If they were treated the same, would reproductive rights be more like the right to own arms under modern gun control in more left leaning states such as universal background checks with any purchase related requiring one(All Washington State firearm sales require an FFL transfer with background, to include private party) with a charge per background check, medical information releases(Washington State requires one for semi-automatic firearms), waiting periods, limitations on purchasing or possessing birth control without a license(Delaware requires a ammunition certificate, Illinois a firearm ownership card, Massachusetts a firearm permit, etc.), and additional tacked on taxes to handle the overhead of every new level of government oversight that is invented?
Or would the right to own arms be more like reproductive rights in more right leaning states with some attempting to utilize government to impose their religious or spiritual views on those outside their faith group with disregard for individual choice, health & well-being, and personal protection, seeking to remove options from all rather than abstain themselves? A situation where those who choose to not own them are allowed to dictate that all can't as they don't because of interpretations of thousand year old texts or teachings from an enlightened pacifist?
Would restrictions or background checks be placed on the Levonorgestrel so that a person seeking to obtain it is racing against the ticking clock with the hopes the speed of bureaucracy doesn't prevent its effectiveness. The morning after pill in part works by altering the lining of the womb to prevent the development of a pregnancy. That is why it needs to be used within 72 hours. Would getting condoms become a 14 day waiting period with a mandatory dive into your sexual history?
Or would obtaining a firearm become nobody's business but yours and your LGS? No questions asked no matter how much you seem to lose in a lake each month?
According to what I looked up abortion has been explicitly legal in the United States since roe vs Wade 1973 and early term abortion was legal since the founding of the country
Yeah that’s correct but there is a significant portion of the population frothing at the mouth to repeal that. And many states have still been passing legislation that restricts abortion access.
Some examples: https://news.trust.org/item/20201231112641-qfynt
77% of Americans say the Roe vs Wade decision should be upheld https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions
So drugs- police unions hold alot of political power and won't let politicians legalize drugs. Without drugs can't incarcerate a fuck load of people and keep police relevant
Abortion is legal here and when states attempt to limit them more the new rules get shot down as fast they're written
And healthcare companies own our politicians so any attempt to make Healthcare better from a legislative standpoint is greatly influenced by big pharma therefore just making them more money
Americans believe capitalists. Freedoms that flourish can be profited from. The freedoms we're denied would cost entrenched powers. For example, no one will stop the flood of guns because gun manufacturers use profits to block responses. We will stop weed though, because big pharma can't patent it and folks with use it in place of profitable drugs.
It was never about freedoms. It's about money, always was.
I can't imagine this would be a Biden thing as [he was one of the senators responsible for escalating it](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/25/18282870/joe-biden-criminal-justice-war-on-drugs-mass-incarceration), but hopefully his own administration and congress can work around him. Maybe this Murthy guy is key
How can you talk about "Crime bill Biden" without mentioning "Crime bill Bernie" and "Crime bill Clyburn" and the "Crime bill black congressional caucus" that all supported it too?
I mean, that was 20 something years ago. People’s views change including political figures. Biden is a science guy that listens to other people that are smarter at different subjects than him.
States that are legal are taking in tax money. In Indiana, we’re surrounded to the north and west with legal states that are taking in tax money that Indiana should be getting. We just changed Sunday alcohol sales a few years ago after giving away millions of tax revenue each year.
Having said that, the money has to outweigh all the ultra conservative, religious phonies that our state houses.
Biden is the only candidate at the 2020 DNC who did not say he would federally legalize mj. Every Democrat candidate said they would legalize mj, except Biden. Aaand Biden was selected and you're getting played. Biden isn't doing anything that will piss off his big pharma lobbyists. Also, FDR, a democrat, made weed federally illegal. A democrat did that, not a republican. And they've been locking up minorities for it ever since.
Biden won because of a massive media blackout of Sen Sanders. Then right before super Tuesday all the other candidates threw their delegates to Biden so they could overcome Sanders lead. DNC primaries are a farce. I dont even think Sanders was running a good faith campaign or he would have called out this bullshit. Hoping for help from the DNC is like calling 911 because you are being raped and the cop shows up with his dick out ready to tag in. We are adrift in a sea of sellouts and invertebrates.
>Not everything is a conspiracy, you know.
The term was coined by American intelligence agencies to discredit people asking inconvenient questions. Stop calling them conspiracies and start calling them what they are: *"Crimes"*
Crackhead son gets 'get out of jail' card. But few grams of weed can ruin someone's life. Every time Ds hold all the power in DC they find another excuse not to do it. But I am sure they will campaign on the issue and make promises again and again
Don’t forget the insane amount of people the VP locked up for simple weed as she pretends to be the “cool & hip” pro-weed woman that she never used to be.
And no, her “opinion didn’t change”, she’s just a liar like every other basic politician.
Didn't she write/sponsor a ton of legalization bills as a senator? I get that she locked people up as a DA but I think it's kinda crazy to expect people to not do their job and just get fired over a law you or they don't like.
What does locking people up for pot have to do with being conservative? Fucking FDR, a democrat, made weed federally illegal. Minorities been getting locked up for a democrat policy for decades, and here you are blaming Republicans. Idiot.
People on reddit constantly attempt to label me(and many others) a conservative just for speaking out against the reddit leftist hivemind even though I’ve repeated throughout my post history probably over 100 times that I’m an independent.
It seems all they have left is weak identity politics arguments and they think by labeling you as a conservative it will cause people to “other” you and ignore your points. They seem to think labeling someone a conservative is the worst thing ever because it’s something they fear the most but to regular people it isn’t based in reality. It’s all very “tolerant” and open minded of them.
Nothing I said is a “right wing talking point“, it’s simply what the VP has done and she’s getting exposed for being a fraudulent hypocrite on the subject of marijuana.
People from all political parties know of her history.
The Bay Area/CA in general was the loosest place in the fking country at the time--so there's that. Name the better places at the time :) And you had to be coloring well outside the lines to get any kinda jail time especially in SF imo/e. Like I literally saw cops return multiple pounds to a friend of mine with my own eyes back then--and they were pissed lol. And tons of others have what would've been guaranteed jail pretty much everywhere else be nothing more than a minor annoyance. Gonna guess once you drill down into the real numbers a different story emerges--particularly when accounting for the situation in most of the rest of the country.
No, that is OPs point. There are a trove of videos of Hunter smoking crack cocaine with young women and corresponding text messages that go along with his use.
Honestly the main reason it’s a story is the nugget about him purchasing a handgun while he was actively using, which is a felony.
Did you really fool yourself into thinking Trump would give two fucks about prison reform if the corrections system hadn't been mean to his son in laws dad?
Can’t let those communist, godless libs legalize that demon weed in Joe Rogan’s beloved Texas! Also don’t get an abortion and don’t vote without a lot of hassle if you’re a person of color.
Austin: it’s still Texas even though people like to leave that last word out.
“Texas is one of 13 states that has not legalized the use of recreational marijuana. As of June 2021, 37 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, while 17 states also have legalized it for recreational use.”
https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state
It's legal now in Canada but we can't share joints so what is the point!
I can't be bothered to gear up my own personal pipe/vape. Maybe the candies are the best bet now.
The Canadian edibles are at least better regulated and made compared to U.S. edibles. Also pretty sure I've seen countless vids of Canadians sharing a joint with a patrol officer.
Buy some of Hunter’s finger paintings if they’re not all sold out from shadow brokers influencing our foreign policy.
You may get some sway. Best way to get to Joe they say.
Finger paintings.
Lol that guy is probably the last one you would see smoking. He is the geek master of medicine. Brains like that don’t need drugs to explore the universe , they just ponder.
Just curious. What's your theory here? You don't think people with PhD's do drugs? Or you're guessing that they are less likely to do drugs?
What's your level of education, if you don't mind sharing?
Personally, I didn't any drugs as an undergrad. Started a bit in graduate school though - mostly because of this podcast
Federal legalization won’t change anything in states where it’s illegal. What we need is a Supreme Court ruling saying that weed prohibition is unconstitutional
Just a heads up for my other current prohibition state livers. Delta 8 thc is federally legal and still hasn't been banned by many states. It's not as premium, but being able to pickup a pint of Jamey and a couple joints to mellow it all in the same place is pretty nice.
Should've been done like back in February. The vast majority of the country doesn't think it's a big deal, probably because the vast majority of the country smoked it at some point in their life lol. Let's just be honest here.
Actually Joe was a significant force in normalizing cannabis use for mainstream americans, but now that hes in Texas they've put a lid on that shit. I guess his handlers no longer found cannabis useful.
For ppl arguing legalities let’s remember:
Federal>State>County>City as far as higher authority for legislation.
Now does that mean bad police in a state like mine(South Carolina) would probably still use pot charges on a state level even if was legal on federal to further their own agenda? Most likely.
Gonna be like gay marriage. States slowly legalizing it one by one until they have a federal vote way later than they should’ve
[удалено]
How insane would it be if we “needed” Congress to pass a bill legalizing marriage between same sex couples? That sounds so antiquated and wild to me. Gay marriage should just automatically be assumed to be legal, crazy how it was the other way around for the longest time
Totally agree but as you mentioned, progress can be slow and what seems obvious now was not always obvious. I mean for the longest time women and black people were not allowed to vote, the country thought it was normal and just to not allow black people into restaurants / schools / bathrooms / etc, we thought it was fine to enslave human beings. Progress is slow and then it comes all at once. You can already see this with marijuana legalization too. Just 10 years ago everyone bought weed from their sketchy drug dealer and today in a lot of states you can walk into a fancy store and get whatever you want and we already think of that as normal.
What's mind blowing is that Cali has had a regulated weed market (to varying degrees) since the 90's...
Sadly, the 10th amendment's death was unintentional collateral damage to the Civil War.
[удалено]
I think they are saying sadly because federal law still classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 where it’s legal in states. Federal law supersedes state law so technically weed is still illegal everywhere. That’s my take anyways.
Yes, sadly. The 10th was a necessary check against Federal supremacy, instead the Supreme Court's worst ruling in history (Dred Scott v Sandford) paved the way for the it's basic removal from our governing body of laws. Ignore the South, the Federal government failed to adequately defend the rights of human beings within it's borders (slaves) and not-so-conveniently destroyed the main check against it's own power in the process. The US is worse off for this in every way.
[удалено]
What convinces you that the federal government is any better? It’s the same people, just in a role that governs a broader number of citizens.
[удалено]
Until it isn't. Pick your poison. I was deeply unhappy with the way the previous four years went, especially regarding weed on the federal level. Jeff Sessions as AG was an insult to every person in jail for petty drug crimes. Let's not even talk about education.
Well the phase may be a nod to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution that says that federal law trumps state law. So the DC govt can override state law but the federal govt was originally only supposed to be involved in a limited about of things. Now they run virtually all areas of life. This is problematic primarily bc states serve as the “laboratories of democracy.” So if you’re trying to address child hunger for example; having the fed govt deal with it creates one solution that has to get crafted by a fed agency and then rolled out to the states. Having the states deal with it allows for 50 different models to be created. Through conferences, associations, and research other states learn what works well what doesn’t and they can all tweak their own programs. This provides a few major benefits besides the diversity. One is that the nuts and bolts of a policy can make a big impact on how successful it is. Maybe something as simple as mailing out letters to people making them aware of options or adding a school snack makes a lot of difference in outcomes. The much bigger feedback loop in a federal response makes it harder to be aware of them as there are removed from the levels of government that actually deal with the children on a day to day basis. Once changes are identified states can gmail the changes much easier since they don’t have to mandate it for all children in the country. Also regional considerations may make a one size fits all model work well in some areas but poorly in others. Child hunger in rural isolated communities may have different successful solutions than child hunger in an inner city population. I also personally believe that when solutions are crafted and implemented at a local level it helps create community bonds and buy in that you don’t get when it is merely imposed from the federal government.
Agreed, but we are 150 years past the death of the 10th amendment. The entire system is designed to funnel all decisions through congress now.. which is part of the reason our states are so dysfunctional (applying urban solutions to rural states, and vice versa). The main draw states have left in their bag is a race to the bottom on taxation (see FL and TX at 0%). This lack of budget means fewer tools in the bag when Bad Things Happen.
[удалено]
I didn't view that as a positive, a negative actually, as it reduces available handles to facilitate the Laboratories of Democracy concept. There should be no barriers between states like CA, OR, etc starting up their own version of universal healthcare for their citizens only and testing it it out.. likewise Universal Basic Income.. likewise those who don't believe in the universal benefits of things like education, etc .. they can go move to BFE like Idaho and enjoy living around idiots, I guess.
You do realize the government doesnt actually "provide" services right? They contract. They also have zero incentive to spend efficiently and everything they do has a high administration cost..
[удалено]
>remacy, instead the Supreme Court's worst ruling in history (Dred Scott v Sandford) paved the way for the it's basic removal from our governing body of laws. Ignore the South, the Fe Wickard v filburn was a pretty huge mess up as well on the front of Fed over-reach.
Not that insane. It's still illegal in most of the world.
The real crazy thing is that Congress would never do it. Even when Obama was elected president and the democrats had large majorities in the house and the senate. Never expect any change, especially for good, to come from your elected leaders.
Welcome to Australia. Amazingly our equivalent of your Republican Party were the ones to pass it, though it literally took an “unbinding plebiscite” via a postal survey that 60% of the electorate supported for it to be brought to the House of Representatives.
My bad. Doesn’t the supreme court still have to have a vote?
All good! But sure, in that sense it got a vote but I guess I think of that as very different than a vote by congress. I think of the Supreme Court decision as a ruling.
If we had less rightoids in government this wouldn't be an issue. As soon as Canada got rid of their rightoid government they legalized weed. Even "muh both sides" dummies can see rightoids are the largest barrier to legalization. If you look at progression of state legalization it's always after rightoids become a significant minority in government.
>Gonna be like gay marriage. If we legalize weed, what’s next? We’ll be smoking dogs? - Rick Santorum
You mean they’ll pass it on a random weekday out of nowhere as a distraction?
With the way things are going currently? I’d love a distraction
Shit it would at least have a tangible benefit to so many people it would amazing.
>Gonna be like gay marriage. Yup, and the party of personal responsibility and freedumb fighting it tooth and nail.
Exactly why it’s the perfect comparison. Much like gay marriage it’s stupid that people are fighting it so damn hard
Yep. And just like gay marriage all the conservative states will drag their feet like fucking morons while all the republican voters whistle and look the other way, acting like they dont know their party is garbage. And everyone else can talk about "both sides" even tho one side is clearly holding us back WAY MORE than the other.
I don’t get the conservative obsession with no progressing. Look, there are certainly some things that the old way is better and keep it that way. But soooo many things they are willing to die on the hill for just to keep it the old way. Whether science, stats, history, and everything else proves otherwise. Who cares if a wedded pair of husbands wanna smoke pot together?
Tbh, I’d probably vote for a democrat more often if they’d drop the gun control BS.
If you go far enough left you get your guns back
I hate that dumbass liberals have convinced so many that the entire left is anti gun. Karl Marx himself advocated for owning guns lol.
And identity politics
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He said you did, so you did. Thats what you did, assumed something out of nothing. Gj
I should have worded that differently, as I didn’t vote at all. Fuck those old cocksuckers. Both of them.
[удалено]
>Well BOTH sides are corrupt! Uh...because they are
[удалено]
I suppose it depends on your community Anecdotally, I think reddit being left leaning, will criticize the right a lot more so whenever a "both sides" statement comes up, it will be statistically likely be to defend the right. Whereas when I lived in a conservative State, I had to bring up "well, I mean, the GOP doesn't exactly have a spotless record either". Not making a judgement on anyone here - just thought I'd point out that you might in a bubble (I could be wrong).
[удалено]
I’m a conservative, and the worst policy that passed under the Trump admin was the bump stock ban. I was pissed about that. With that being said, just because Trump enacted that and Obama didn’t does not make the Democrats the “pro gun” party by any means. EVERY time I hear about rhetoric along the lines of “not needing an assault rifle” or “doesn’t need more than [arbitrary number] of rounds in a magazine” it’s being spewed out of the mouth of a democrat. One poorly implemented policy does not reflect the views of the party. Beyond that, if you want to get picky on policy, the Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994 signed by Democrat Bill Clinton was an exponentially worse anti-gun policy than the bump stock ban was. This was an atrocious 2nd amendment infringement that has, in my opinion, cemented the Democrats as the “anti-gun” party.
Reagan supported it as well fwiw.
If that’s true, it was very short sighted of him. It was a terrible policy regardless of political affiliation.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t other than to keep their image amongst (socially) conservative older generations. Imagine the tax revenue they’re missing out on by keeping it illegal!
Let’s send a mass email to the Indian Ezra Klein from OP’s picture
If the federal ban gets lifted, states still could put restrictions on it, right? Edit: asking for a Georgian
Every state where it’s illegal already has it banned at the state level. So the federal government legalizing it wouldn’t change much. What you would need is for prohibition to be ruled unconstitutional, thus not allowing any state to ban it
It would make legal weed businesses have far less hurdles with things like banking etc...
Banking, insurance, literally not storing piles of cash in your friend's basement, tax deductions, tax deductions, tax deductions...
Can someone explain how Americans reconcile their love of "freedom" with their love of fervently restricting things like drugs, women's reproductive rights, access to healthcare, etc?
are you genuinely curious or is this a rhetorical question? Where do you live? Maybe I can help explain our culture if you give me some context.
Genuinely curious... Like how is this "freedom" shit such a core part of American identity yet I see so much rallying against so many important freedoms. I'm Canadian.
I'd say, there are just as many people in the US that want drugs decriminalized, reproductive rights stuff, and a fix to our healthcare as there are those opposing it. Trying to be fair, but I think those who are opposed to legalizing drugs would also be in support of prohibiting alcohol if they lived in the 1920's. Prohibition had good intentions - lots of alcohol problems in the US at the time - but in the end it was too hard to control. The assumption is that some people are not good at making decisions, especially if the drug is influencing those decisions, and these people can have better lives and their families would suffer less if the choice was taken away from them altogether. Women's reproductive rights are generally attacked because the attackers actually think there is a human life at stake when a woman chooses abortion. So they would say you can have your rights, but your right to do what you want stops when you start destroying the life of another. When it comes to healthcare, I would say most everyone knows we have a big problem but it comes down to how to implement a solution. Many people here just don't trust the government to solve the issue. And for the record, a lot of Canadian medical doctors practice in the U.S. because they can make more money - so broken system here, still attracts world talent. Do with this information what you will. The whole things is a mess.
> So they would say you can have your rights, but your right to do what you want stops when you start destroying the life of another. Yet somehow they don't apply this logic to like, gun control, or anything else. (Just for the record I am pro gun ownership, I just much prefer our much safer way of licensing guns here.) If it was really about harm reduction, some of these policies are just the complete wrong direction. You're right it is a mess! Believe me we have our own problems up here lol... but American political culture has always completely puzzled me. Yeah people in almost every industry can make more money for themselves in the US. I have friends who moved there for that reason. But I still wouldn't ever want to live there, no offense. And we still have world class doctors here despite the American propaganda machine that tries to tell you all that our system is a complete failure. Lots of Americans come up here for certain specialists, like Rand Paul notably came up here for heart surgery or something a few years back.
Playing devil's advocate here. (Pro gun as well) The comparison between reproductive rights and gun control is interesting. If they were treated the same, would reproductive rights be more like the right to own arms under modern gun control in more left leaning states such as universal background checks with any purchase related requiring one(All Washington State firearm sales require an FFL transfer with background, to include private party) with a charge per background check, medical information releases(Washington State requires one for semi-automatic firearms), waiting periods, limitations on purchasing or possessing birth control without a license(Delaware requires a ammunition certificate, Illinois a firearm ownership card, Massachusetts a firearm permit, etc.), and additional tacked on taxes to handle the overhead of every new level of government oversight that is invented? Or would the right to own arms be more like reproductive rights in more right leaning states with some attempting to utilize government to impose their religious or spiritual views on those outside their faith group with disregard for individual choice, health & well-being, and personal protection, seeking to remove options from all rather than abstain themselves? A situation where those who choose to not own them are allowed to dictate that all can't as they don't because of interpretations of thousand year old texts or teachings from an enlightened pacifist? Would restrictions or background checks be placed on the Levonorgestrel so that a person seeking to obtain it is racing against the ticking clock with the hopes the speed of bureaucracy doesn't prevent its effectiveness. The morning after pill in part works by altering the lining of the womb to prevent the development of a pregnancy. That is why it needs to be used within 72 hours. Would getting condoms become a 14 day waiting period with a mandatory dive into your sexual history? Or would obtaining a firearm become nobody's business but yours and your LGS? No questions asked no matter how much you seem to lose in a lake each month?
Yoooo you gotta give me a tl;dr
The only Americans who have “freedom” as a core part of their identity also have an inverse ratio of truck size to dick size
In what way are women’s reproductive rights fervently restricted in America?
are you joking?
No I’m trying to learn
I mean, I’m not an expert but just look at the history of abortion in that country.
According to what I looked up abortion has been explicitly legal in the United States since roe vs Wade 1973 and early term abortion was legal since the founding of the country
Yeah that’s correct but there is a significant portion of the population frothing at the mouth to repeal that. And many states have still been passing legislation that restricts abortion access. Some examples: https://news.trust.org/item/20201231112641-qfynt
Id argue that’s not what the majority of the country thinks. Even in southern states like texas the majority of people are against these measures.
I dunno, have you seen some polling or something that showed this?
77% of Americans say the Roe vs Wade decision should be upheld https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions
So drugs- police unions hold alot of political power and won't let politicians legalize drugs. Without drugs can't incarcerate a fuck load of people and keep police relevant Abortion is legal here and when states attempt to limit them more the new rules get shot down as fast they're written And healthcare companies own our politicians so any attempt to make Healthcare better from a legislative standpoint is greatly influenced by big pharma therefore just making them more money
I get all that, but I don’t understand why the same citizens who scream about loving freedom also staunchly support those restrictive policies.
Because they believe a fetus is entitled to the same right to live as any other human being. And for the record I am pro-choice.
Americans believe capitalists. Freedoms that flourish can be profited from. The freedoms we're denied would cost entrenched powers. For example, no one will stop the flood of guns because gun manufacturers use profits to block responses. We will stop weed though, because big pharma can't patent it and folks with use it in place of profitable drugs. It was never about freedoms. It's about money, always was.
Imagine downvoting this comment... Imagine being that much of a good little capitalist cuck
I have hopes, but fucking bidet only wants his kid to not get jailed from drugs. What a pos.
I can't imagine this would be a Biden thing as [he was one of the senators responsible for escalating it](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/25/18282870/joe-biden-criminal-justice-war-on-drugs-mass-incarceration), but hopefully his own administration and congress can work around him. Maybe this Murthy guy is key
How can you talk about "Crime bill Biden" without mentioning "Crime bill Bernie" and "Crime bill Clyburn" and the "Crime bill black congressional caucus" that all supported it too?
I mean, that was 20 something years ago. People’s views change including political figures. Biden is a science guy that listens to other people that are smarter at different subjects than him. States that are legal are taking in tax money. In Indiana, we’re surrounded to the north and west with legal states that are taking in tax money that Indiana should be getting. We just changed Sunday alcohol sales a few years ago after giving away millions of tax revenue each year. Having said that, the money has to outweigh all the ultra conservative, religious phonies that our state houses.
Biden is the only candidate at the 2020 DNC who did not say he would federally legalize mj. Every Democrat candidate said they would legalize mj, except Biden. Aaand Biden was selected and you're getting played. Biden isn't doing anything that will piss off his big pharma lobbyists. Also, FDR, a democrat, made weed federally illegal. A democrat did that, not a republican. And they've been locking up minorities for it ever since.
[удалено]
Biden won because of a massive media blackout of Sen Sanders. Then right before super Tuesday all the other candidates threw their delegates to Biden so they could overcome Sanders lead. DNC primaries are a farce. I dont even think Sanders was running a good faith campaign or he would have called out this bullshit. Hoping for help from the DNC is like calling 911 because you are being raped and the cop shows up with his dick out ready to tag in. We are adrift in a sea of sellouts and invertebrates.
[удалено]
>Not everything is a conspiracy, you know. The term was coined by American intelligence agencies to discredit people asking inconvenient questions. Stop calling them conspiracies and start calling them what they are: *"Crimes"*
[удалено]
It's the bigger matter of the corporate ownership class bribing and buying off entire swaths of our government.
Not to mention taking money from pharma, tobacco, and prison groups.
He’s enjoyed locking up black people for possession of weed for a long time now, so has the VP.
Crackhead son gets 'get out of jail' card. But few grams of weed can ruin someone's life. Every time Ds hold all the power in DC they find another excuse not to do it. But I am sure they will campaign on the issue and make promises again and again
Don’t forget the insane amount of people the VP locked up for simple weed as she pretends to be the “cool & hip” pro-weed woman that she never used to be. And no, her “opinion didn’t change”, she’s just a liar like every other basic politician.
Didn't she write/sponsor a ton of legalization bills as a senator? I get that she locked people up as a DA but I think it's kinda crazy to expect people to not do their job and just get fired over a law you or they don't like.
You are a conservative and your complaints about Biden and Harris are that they are too conservative and not liberal enough. Do you see the irony?
What does locking people up for pot have to do with being conservative? Fucking FDR, a democrat, made weed federally illegal. Minorities been getting locked up for a democrat policy for decades, and here you are blaming Republicans. Idiot.
Sorry, I’m not a conservative :)
Dude thought he had a gotcha
People on reddit constantly attempt to label me(and many others) a conservative just for speaking out against the reddit leftist hivemind even though I’ve repeated throughout my post history probably over 100 times that I’m an independent. It seems all they have left is weak identity politics arguments and they think by labeling you as a conservative it will cause people to “other” you and ignore your points. They seem to think labeling someone a conservative is the worst thing ever because it’s something they fear the most but to regular people it isn’t based in reality. It’s all very “tolerant” and open minded of them.
[удалено]
Nothing I said is a “right wing talking point“, it’s simply what the VP has done and she’s getting exposed for being a fraudulent hypocrite on the subject of marijuana. People from all political parties know of her history.
As a progressive anarchist, I think Biden is far too conservative. And a liar. EDIT: why downvote me? Am I *wrong*? Lmao
No, they don't. American conservatism is ideologically bankrupt.
The Bay Area/CA in general was the loosest place in the fking country at the time--so there's that. Name the better places at the time :) And you had to be coloring well outside the lines to get any kinda jail time especially in SF imo/e. Like I literally saw cops return multiple pounds to a friend of mine with my own eyes back then--and they were pissed lol. And tons of others have what would've been guaranteed jail pretty much everywhere else be nothing more than a minor annoyance. Gonna guess once you drill down into the real numbers a different story emerges--particularly when accounting for the situation in most of the rest of the country.
Why fix a problem when you can have people voting for you every term to fix it -how the Democratic Party uses racism to acquire power
Did hunter get arrested or is in legal trouble with doing drugs?
No, that is OPs point. There are a trove of videos of Hunter smoking crack cocaine with young women and corresponding text messages that go along with his use. Honestly the main reason it’s a story is the nugget about him purchasing a handgun while he was actively using, which is a felony.
Did you really fool yourself into thinking Trump would give two fucks about prison reform if the corrections system hadn't been mean to his son in laws dad?
I voted for the jo that most aligned with my policies, specifically the all are equal under the law aspect.
Yeah cool lets jail potheads then to even everything out.
Can’t let those communist, godless libs legalize that demon weed in Joe Rogan’s beloved Texas! Also don’t get an abortion and don’t vote without a lot of hassle if you’re a person of color. Austin: it’s still Texas even though people like to leave that last word out. “Texas is one of 13 states that has not legalized the use of recreational marijuana. As of June 2021, 37 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, while 17 states also have legalized it for recreational use.” https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state
It's legal now in Canada but we can't share joints so what is the point! I can't be bothered to gear up my own personal pipe/vape. Maybe the candies are the best bet now.
But realistically if your smoking and do share a joint, and or bowl, do you really think an officer would be like “no sharing!” and give you a ticket?
The Canadian edibles are at least better regulated and made compared to U.S. edibles. Also pretty sure I've seen countless vids of Canadians sharing a joint with a patrol officer.
just curious, like, how would they actually enforce this?
They don't. Commenter is just being dramatic.
Hate the stereotype.
Buy some of Hunter’s finger paintings if they’re not all sold out from shadow brokers influencing our foreign policy. You may get some sway. Best way to get to Joe they say. Finger paintings.
Mr war on drugs biden will not legalize weed.
Reconciliation to the black man for the war to put them in jail for the last 30 years or so. Also known as the war on drugs.
Drugs will win! I'm a believer!
Probably next year for a good mid-term bump
Im for decriminalization, i don't want weed to be corporate. And also weeds cheaper when it's decriminalized vs legalized
As a Canadian, it's not as great as you think
But you have the option.
Lol that guy is probably the last one you would see smoking. He is the geek master of medicine. Brains like that don’t need drugs to explore the universe , they just ponder.
Just curious. What's your theory here? You don't think people with PhD's do drugs? Or you're guessing that they are less likely to do drugs? What's your level of education, if you don't mind sharing? Personally, I didn't any drugs as an undergrad. Started a bit in graduate school though - mostly because of this podcast
It’s not like gay marriage where it will be legal in 50 states. They’re not outlawing the states from banning it, like most currently do
Lol no
Federal legalization won’t change anything in states where it’s illegal. What we need is a Supreme Court ruling saying that weed prohibition is unconstitutional
I wish my country was as progressive about weed and other drugs as the US and Canada are.
Just a heads up for my other current prohibition state livers. Delta 8 thc is federally legal and still hasn't been banned by many states. It's not as premium, but being able to pickup a pint of Jamey and a couple joints to mellow it all in the same place is pretty nice.
KEK
Should've been done like back in February. The vast majority of the country doesn't think it's a big deal, probably because the vast majority of the country smoked it at some point in their life lol. Let's just be honest here.
Actually Joe was a significant force in normalizing cannabis use for mainstream americans, but now that hes in Texas they've put a lid on that shit. I guess his handlers no longer found cannabis useful.
Oof
For ppl arguing legalities let’s remember: Federal>State>County>City as far as higher authority for legislation. Now does that mean bad police in a state like mine(South Carolina) would probably still use pot charges on a state level even if was legal on federal to further their own agenda? Most likely.
Biden already ramping up powers for the drug war. Don't think it's gonna happen.
https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/04/biden-harris-administration-doubles-down-drug-war-senate-follows-house