71–80 of 151 posts
I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?
It didn't, it needed an amendment to make it impossible to repeal prohibition by mere legislation. Prohibition was passed by statute before the Amendment, which did not authorize prohibition but mandated it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its on a my reading list since he talked about it on joe rogan. Is it worth the time? what did you get out of it so far?
You get a lot of history and also the experiences of a pretty normal person. A lot of information about psychedelics comes from people who take a lot of drugs. I am generally not interested in taking substances so I could relate to this book more than other material. Definitely worth a read.
I actually disagree with Pollan on what he thinks drug laws should be. He generally supports decriminalization of some things like mushrooms, but then supports heavy state paternalism by keeping them restricted from any recreational use.
Still, a great read and I really appreciate his work.
Says something for the value of some sort of CI process. Here in Australia there are clear popular majorities for some form of loosening laws re marijuana, yet any politician who makes serious moves in that direction is crucified by the far right press. In effect, a foreigner (Rupert Murdoch) has a veto over Australian laws. Even with a CI though, magic mushrooms would be a bridge too far here I suspect. Imagine allo…
The far right has been a real blight on humanity in recent decades.
In fact any unchecked source of power is a potential source of mass misery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The danger of MDMA is overstated. From an actual chemical toxicity standpoint it's relatively safe, accidental overdose would be next to impossible. You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine. Even the danger for dehydration/overhydration is overstated. Heatstroke is a danger when using it during the day in summer (e.g. at f…
> You can have a gram in one go (average dose is somewhere around 80-250 mg), and although you'd probably feel pretty sick, you'll be fine. This is incredibly irresponsible advice. 125mg (1/8g) of pure mdma is a good dose, more likely won't kill you, but you'll be far from fine. > Most of the potential harm from MDMA can be mitigated with good education. How about starting off by not saying a gram is a sensible dose.
I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?
In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot. The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot. The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or…
What a disgusting and disingenuous interpretation — see this for what it is, a blatant powergrab by the federal government that prevents localities (states) from governing themselves. The interstate commerce clause was a mistake and should be abolished.
As the law nerd cliche goes, they aren't final because they're right, they're right because they're final.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what decriminalization means: > In a federal country, acts may be decriminalized by one level of government while still subject to penalties levied by another; for example, possession of a decriminalized drug may still be subject to criminal charges by one level of government, but another may yet impose a monetary fine. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments fro…
Huh? Decriminalization would be the state declaring that possessing Psilocybin is not illegal under state law. Directing law enforcement to de-prioritize it is not the same thing.
Do you have a better word for localities whom do not have the authority to make something legal to effectively do so by directing law enforcement and prosecutors to not pursue a certain offense?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938358/marijuana-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah its really awkward when surveys show one distribution of illegal drug use across all races and socioeconomic classes but then you see a completely different distribution about who gets arrested for it, and it is very disproportionate all for some edgelord to say "but they commit all the crimes its fact see" and its really like everyone commits crimes, which is a depressing standard from one lens but even more de…
This paper(1) is by a Black economist at Harvard. On page 5, Blacks are 25% less likely to be shot, though they are more likely to experience non-lethal force. The paper concludes there are a minority of officers who discriminate. I was quite surprised by that. I also was curious about that because it didn't match my preconceived notions, so did a rough check of some of the crime stats myself(2). It seems about 25% o…
And you are talking about perceived demographics of police brutality. Are you not signaling with your essay and predilection to post stats on something nobody was talking about?
Sure if you had the stats folder with pdfs and links to contribute to the parent post that would be great! Its not currently practical for everyone to keep a list of every survey and study they have just to have an opinion or observation about something. But you can contribute with supporting or counter logic if thats the kind of signaling you like
I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?
Wickard v. Filburn, fucking up the separation of powers since 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Decriminalization means that the lowest misdemeanor is replaced by a civil citation or confiscation. You might still have to pay a fine like a traffic ticket, but it's not a criminal charge or an arrest. It's also still illegal to purchase but you won't be charged for doing so.
How does this work if someone on for example a green card got caught and cited for possession? Since it’s still a violation of controlled substances act would it affect a citizenship application?