831–840 of 918 posts
I’d rather the regime let Assange go, and pardoned Snowden. Allowing something most states already allow is weak sauce as far as populism is concerned.
do you know how many poor people get caught up on mj charges every year in this country? not to mention this will lead to prior charges being expunged from people's records. but sure let's prioritize those two guys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's under a different treaty. You're falling for the bamboozle. This is the origin of what you're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_... Which is what this was based on: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard... Which was the impetus for what you're talking about.
Help me out here, because I'm genuinely trying to grok your point but, for whatever reason, it's not clicking for me. You originally stated: >Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN. In response to the person above you in this comment chain, you then suggested that their understanding was wrong and that they're "falling for the bamboozle". I'm not sure how th…
Edit: It makes sense you think I'm being hostile by pointing out facts since that's what you took issue with to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Help me out here, because I'm genuinely trying to grok your point but, for whatever reason, it's not clicking for me. You originally stated: >Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN. In response to the person above you in this comment chain, you then suggested that their understanding was wrong and that they're "falling for the bamboozle". I'm not sure how th…
That's because you're intentionally missing the first point where I said that's under a different treaty. Probably because you aren't actually interested in learning the complexity of international drug laws, but simply buying into political nonsense. Edit: It makes sense you think I'm being hostile by pointing out facts since that's what you took issue with to begin with.
Edit: It's not that I think you're being hostile by pointing out facts, it's that you're telling me I am "intentionally missing the point", which is not true, and you then said that I'm not interested in learning about complex drug laws and would rather buy into political nonsense. Call it what you want - hostility, being an asshole, whatever - but it's certainly not helpful nor productive.
Clearly, there are lines being blurred here. In your first post, you said that a specific commission was responsible for changing the classification, and hey - that commission actually did do that, regardless of whether or not it was under a different treaty. Because there are multiple treaties, this is a very complex issue and it should be crystal clear that I'm having trouble sorting it out (I even said as much in my first response). That's why I'm asking you to help explain it to me, and instead of saying, "Sure bud, lemme help," you're trying to paint me as some kind of ignorant asshole. And I never "took issue" with anything, I just highlighted that it was confusing.
Good for you for understanding it! I don't, hence my ask.
Edit 2: And I usually try not to do this, but it seems like I'm not the only person who is confused here. Your comment got downvoted to the point that it turned grey, while my initial response asking for clarification has four upvotes as of the time of me writing this. Seems to me like there are other people who aren't understanding your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(U... The above link is the Act that governs the USA's international obligations based on our treaty with the UN to schedule specific drugs and under those terms only allowed to reschedule Schedule 1 drugs with the approval of the UN; often after a review of the drugs medicinal purposes by the WHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Drug_Abuse_Preve..…
>These domestic rescheduling may have an affect on legal charges or banking, but cannot address the overarching classifier of Schedule 1 drugs which is the UN based on the 1st link. So, you're acknowledging that changes to legal charges, banking capabilities and so forth are benefits that come from this reclassification, but you're also calling this change "utter bullshit" and a "red herring"?
Banking, isn't necessarily limited by the UN treaties - but since huge amounts of cash are flowing into cannabis businesses that are unbanked, it means Wall Street is without a massive influx of investment capital and return opportunities. Allowing the DEA to make changes to a schedule may help remove domestic barriers so banks can capture what they don't directly control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately different people often want different things.
Yes they do, for example lobbyists and donors and buddies want to get rich at the expense of the country and its people, and the common plebs don't want that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In response to uninformed sibling comments reflexively fearing cannabis use in drivers, see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/ > Cannabis users perceive their driving under the influence as impaired and more cautious, and given a dose of 7 mg THC (about a third of a joint), drivers rated themselves as impaired even though their driving performance was not; in contrast, at a BAC 0.04% (slightl…
Everything I've seen suggests that weed mimics or even exacerbates ADHD symptoms, where are you getting that it improves them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's oddly not. Only to be a user or addict with a firearm. IIRC if you just like the way weed looks in your hand that doesn't make you a user, and there's plenty of reasonable doubt you're guarding it for grandma or whoever. Of course people are still being convicted of weed and firearm, but it gets recorded as gun law violation and nobody cares, cuz left hates guns and right hates weed, so they'll never repeal it.
The worst part is that the states are quite happy to help the feds enforce this. E.g. Hawaii has both mandatory gun registration and requires a state-issued license for medical marijuana. And if you happen to have both, well: https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-pol... It should also be noted that while DEA is instructed by the executive to not go after cannabis users in states where it's legal fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SBF was willing to repeatedly take double-or-nothing bets at 50/50 odds even though the expected utility of each bet is the same as not betting at all and the combined odds of bankruptcy very quickly asymptotes to 100% with increasing rounds. Literally beheading him won't put off the next person like him. His current punishment is probably enough to put off anyone sane. Assange isn't a whistleblower just by founding…
No he was not. You think he'd repeatedly do Russian roulette with half the bullets? He had the odds with him with his legal advisors. Madoff's sentencing is why SBF's parents taught him to disregard the law. If you don't understand the idea of figureheads being important, what would happen if the president was shot, or if Dali lama was chosen by china? America would still keep going as would tibetan Buddhism. The lea…
> what would happen if the president was shot
Judging by all the presidents who have been shot, at most an airport gets named after them or a statue gets built.
> or if Dali lama was chosen by china
Not much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Panchen_Lama_controversy
> The leaks seems to have stopped much more since assange is gone.
"Seems"? Plenty of new ones listed on the Wikileaks website.
> assange definitely does deserve credit
For what? Snowden went to… a newspaper. Didn't need Wikileaks. Plenty of whistleblowers did the same before Wikileaks. It's a new brand, but not a new thing.
One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
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 guess, but have you tried to gamble online using a CapitalOne mastercard? It's impossible. Your only recourse is an ACH transfer.