371–380 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signs that times are a' changing -- you can buy illegal drugs with a card now. (Call me crazy and old-fashioned, but I don't think I'd want 50+ illegally-correlated transactions on my financial record that the government could lump into other charges...)
Do they have jurisdiction to go and do that?
One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to…
How is it more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol?
Prescriptions are basically a formality. There are a certain set of symptoms you have to describe to a doctor in order to get any particular drug, then you go to a doctor and get the prescription. It has to be this way because many of the conditions have no non-invasive tests to determine if the patient is lying and as much as the DEA would like it to be the case, doctors are not supposed to be cops and they can't be effective doctors if they have to play CYA all day.
But at that point all the law is doing is propping up pharma profits and inflating healthcare costs by routing recreational use through the insurance system, and screw that. If you want to eat pot brownies then you should a) pay the market price, not a tax to corporate shareholders, and b) pay it yourself, not stick the cost on everyone who buys health insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need to talk down to me. My point was that they could be doing what people want for the entire duration of their term , rather than in the last few months. To use an analogy, it's like a student getting bad grades all year and then doing a bunch of extra credit assignments when they're worried about failing the class.
Your chief complaint is not new, it's nearly as old as democracy itself. Different forms of democracy have various trade-offs, what your describing is the trade-off of representative democracy.
America should have a long hard look at why it takes so long to do something that would have been considered "reasonable" by most of the country 15 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to all the people pissed off at Roe v Wade
[flagged]
Who do you think approved Roe v. Wade in the first place that legalized abortion. An "unelected unaccountable panel of judges."
Edit: If someone can find a federal law that legalized abortion then please, I'm all ears.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Normalize" in this sense means "to make culturally acceptable". A thing can be legal but still be taboo, for example, in Japan tattoos are legal but you might get discriminated against at an onsen if the owner doesn't want tattoos on display in their establishment. Weed might be "normalized" in some communities, but a large portion of Americans will silently judge you if you are a recreational drug user regardless o…
>Contrast to, say, beer or wine, which the majority of Americans will not silently judge you for indulging in moderation. In point of fact, it's often flipped around. It's only been the last few years that I can tell someone I don't drink and be met with lots of, "Good for you!"s rather than silent judgement.
But you're right. I'm not drinking again, and people are way less likely to question that choice now. I can't remember the last time it was questioned, actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What bothers me is that all these things are only happening because it's an election year and the incumbent doesn't have great polling numbers.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention as these rule making processes started literally years ago that’s how much red tape there is to get through. And even if what you are saying was true (it isn’t) isn’t that the entire argument for democracy in the first place? “Politicians make good policy because they want to get re-elected” is how we should hope things work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone buys votes using one issue or another, using cannabis to buy votes should be the least concern of anyone. While you can make some amount of case that the timing makes it a manipulation, is this really the manipulation that bothers you? I would rather there be no manipulations. But in a country that divides itself on infantile identity politics, fight fire with fire. It is not a fair game. You can’t demand…
The timing is complete bullshit. Politicians “pocket” issues like this and pull them out during an election year “look how much I care about you!!! Vote for me!!!” They could have and should have done this a very long time ago. It’s obvious to everyone that the democrats are losing their bread a butter voters, young people and black folks. This gets waved around for the nth time and everyone gets excited.
One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
Edit: yes
https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/tax_implications_reclassi...