this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
857 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3086 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday called on the federal government to move “as quickly as possible” to change the way it officially classifies marijuana, saying that “nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.”

“I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible,” Harris said. “We need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment. This issue is stark when one considers the fact that on the schedule currently, marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin ― as dangerous as heroin ― and more dangerous than fentanyl, which is absurd, not to mention patently unfair.”

Marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule 1 drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration. That classification designates it one of the most dangerous drugs possible, with no medicinal uses. Other substances in the same category include heroin, ecstasy and LSD. Marijuana advocates have been pushing for years for the federal government to either reschedule marijuana to a different category or deschedule it entirely.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 150 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Harris oversaw more than 1,900 marijuana convictions in San Francisco, previously unreported records from the DA’s office show. Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.

As the political winds blow with her I guess. At least it's a positive change.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 102 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Eh.

That was when it went from jail to a fine though.

So lots of people stopped giving a shit and started smoking publicly.

And she's been pro legalization for years now.

There's lots of shit to criticize Biden and Harris on, but Harris's time as a DA and her cannabis conviction just isn't a good one.

[–] ArcRay@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 8 months ago

"Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for marijuana offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.[73] The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[73] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and go her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses."

From her Wikipedia page (the reference is pay walled and im not invested enough to figure it out).

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 61 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

As an AG, it was her role to uphold the law and bring forward prosecutions.

I'm recognizing positive change, which is an option now with her new role

Edit I'll also acknowledge it's an election year and this is a popular topic TOO

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

As an AG it's her role to use discretion in bringing forward cases based on her interpretation of her mandate. That's why it's a political position.

[–] Manos@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They campaigned on this 4 years ago. They've done plenty of good things, but this one turned out out to be an empty promise.

[–] june@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yea just ignore that Biden directed the relevant federal agencies to get this done and the HHS has already made the recommendation to move it to schedule 3.

Oh and damn, look at this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsinclair/2024/01/18/dea-considers-rescheduling-cannabis-what-this-means-for-us-and-global-reform/?sh=2ce8efef743f

The gears are still moving and the DEA, the agency with the final say according to the legal framework within the controlled substances act, is working on it with the executive branch is actively pushing to have it reclassified.

It’s almost like a bunch of you who are making brand new accounts to make these posts about broken campaign processes have no fucking clue what you’re talking about because, at the very least, you’re not paying any fucking attention.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago

A campaign promise is very different than a statement from a sitting official.

This is not an excuse for it not being descheduled yet.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Sometimes a hypocrite is just a man in the process of changing.

[–] vladmech@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

I kind of want to create an unexpected Sanderson group…

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If they’re going with the crowd, that’s societal inertia or peer pressure, not change. Harris is not making a big controversial stand, a majority of Americans want legalization - across demographics, political leanings, and income.

Now if she was advocating heroin prescriptions as a harm reduction, or expunging her own convictions for possession, or a systemic reevaluation of our drug law and enforcement approach? THAT’S a change that shows she understands how the law is bad, not this new political posturing to win votes callously

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

That's honestly better I think. If she doesn't personally believe it, but is expressing support for it politically, that means the topic is winning.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Or you're being suckered again.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 27 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Or this is what she wants the law to be, that was what she did when her job was to enforce the law that existed back then.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 8 months ago

DAs always have discretion in what cases to drop or move forward, along with being able to offer plea bargains. They aren’t legally required to prosecute everyone who smokes weed, it’s just good optics to a certain political class to do so. And that political class was a much bigger tent even 10-15 years ago.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Also, they talk about marijuana every time there’s an election, then don’t actually change it.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago

Not really a change, though, Biden asked for rescheduling years ago.