I don't like when politicians only respond to overwhelming public discontent or desires in an election year. This reclassification is a good thing, absolutely, but it angers me that policymakers wait and treat us like baying kittens eager for a morsel of acknowledgement from our elected leaders.
I really like it when politicians do stuff that the citizens want.
There's no particular need to chastise politicians for doing the right thing, when you could have chastised them the whole time they weren't doing the right thing
I prefer politicians to do what is logical and what is right, even if the citizens hate it so much they will be beheaded in a revolution. One of the number one things I lament the lack of is leaders with actual principles.
When someone commits an evil act, they did it because they think it is justified somehow. Most bad people do not see themselves as bad at the moment of the act, only as someone who had a reason to do it and the reason was much more important.
This is true, but I think much of it is also true of the public. Many abhorrent policies and acts were the result of what the public thought was best and demanded at the time.
How is marijuana use “logical and right?” It serves no logical function other than dulling your ability to perform your social obligations. Legalizing marijuana is actually an example of politicians following public opinion that’s wrong and illogical.
Doing this 4 years ago would’ve meant potentially 4 years of life returned to people who are actively getting fucked or have been getting fucked because of these laws.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
We have banned alcohol, religions ban alcohol. It's more to do with moral panic rather than subjugating people. As others mention, Singapore, China, Japan, North Korea, etc. have strict control over narcotic substances. Many countries are in diametric opposition to US policies but "agree" with narcotics policies for some of the same reasons.
You have to realize countries will make things terrible crimes by framing something anti-colonialist.
No doubt that was the case for many instances; however, I would posit that even if the US had been homogenously either black or white as a nation, in either case as a country we would still have controlled those substances. By and large, the only places that didn't control narcotics were locations with poor/weak central governments or a history of proscribed consumption (central Asia had/has a history where it's customary for older folks to consume, but it is heavily frowned upon for non older people to consume.)
> all seem to agree...that marijuana use is degenerate behavior... Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and the world’s largest atheist countries are on the same page
Moreover there are many "degenerate behaviors" that we don't currently lock people up for. Like not washing hands after going to the bathroom, even after going #2. Does someone quietly consuming a plant without bothering anyone qualify as "degenerate"?
> It’s also illegal in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, though we can debate how homogenous or not those countries are.
I didn't realize there was a debate at all. They're incredibly diverse countries.
I know you were trying to dispute GP's assertion that cannabis was made illegal in the US as a way to selectively prosecute minorities by pointing out how it's illegal worldwide. The example above might show you how both could be true. (Btw I have no idea if racism is the reason cannabis became illegal in the US, or whether it was just a regular moral panic)
To add an additional point about Hinduism, it seems like a distinction is made between ritual use and recreational use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_and_religion (“In Hinduism, wise drinking of bhang (which contains cannabis), according to religious rites, is believed to cleanse sins, unite one with Shiva and avoid the miseries of hell in the future life. It is also believed to have medicinal benefits and is used in Ayurvedic medicine.[37] In contrast, foolish drinking of bhang without rites is considered a sin.[38]”).
I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between specific religious use on certain holidays and recreational use of marijuana. But otherwise fair point.
> I know you were trying to dispute GP's assertion that cannabis was made illegal in the US as a way to selectively prosecute minorities by pointing out how it's illegal worldwide. The example above might show you how both could be true.
But your link suggests that the first point is not true. It categorizes countries into groups based on their positions in the treaty. But the anti-drug groups included many countries besides the US:
“Manufacturing states group: This group included primarily Western industrialized nations, the key players being the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, West Germany, and Japan. Having no cultural affinity for organic drug use and being faced with the effects of drug abuse on their citizens, they advocated stringent controls on the production of organic raw materials and on illicit trafficking.”
“Strict control group: These were essentially non-producing and non-manufacturing states with no direct economic stake in the drug trade. The key members were France, Sweden, Brazil, and the Republic of China. Most of the states in this group were culturally opposed to drug use and suffered from abuse problems.”
> Does someone quietly consuming a plant without bothering anyone qualify as "degenerate"?
Yes. For most people, marijuana makes them worse rather than better at fulfilling their social roles as parents, workers, etc. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’ve never met one. (Like “functional alcoholics” y’all aren’t as functional as they want us to think.)
You're conflating alcoholics - definitionally people with substance abuse problems - with all cannabis users. Have a think, consider whether that's logical, setting aside your valid emotions about the topic.
If a parent can have a glass of wine after the kids are in bed, why not an edible?
Workers' productivity is a performance management issue for employers, not something to be addressed with state violence.
> You're conflating alcoholics - definitionally people with substance abuse problems - with all cannabis users.
I’m not conflating them, I’m comparing them. Based on my anecdotal observations, people have less command over their addictive behaviors (whether it’s alcohol or weed) than they think.
> If a parent can have a glass of wine after the kids are in bed, why not an edible?
Because people don’t have as much control over themselves as you want to believe. People would be better parents if nobody drank.
> Workers' productivity is a performance management issue for employers, not something to be addressed with state violence.
Worker productivity creates the resources available to take care of the community. That’s not any less true in a modern tax-funded welfare state than in a third world village. When half your income is going to the government, the government (which is just a proxy for the community) has a strong interest in people being productive.
"It's banned in all these places so it must be bad" is a terrible argument. It was also illegal to be gay or get an abortion in most places until recently.
All societies up until maybe 200 years ago for some, yesterday for others, also agreed that women were lesser. Pretty strong consensus there actually.
My argument is: “it’s banned in all these places so it must not be the result of US racial politics.” The same is true for laws against abortion or homosexuality. The fact that Hinduism and Buddhism have taboos against both shows that the taboos aren’t something that American Christians ginned up from nothing. They reflect something about the human experience that cuts across completely different cultures.
The same thing with gender roles. Social consensus 200 years ago probably reflects some cross-cutting aspect of the human experience, for example the fact that 200 years ago, when most people survived by doing back-breaking physical labor, the physical differences between men and women were much more salient in everyday life.
> The fact that Hinduism and Buddhism have taboos against both shows that the taboos aren’t something that American Christians ginned up from nothing. They reflect something about the human experience that cuts across completely different cultures.
A societal practice or norm can still be worth dismantling, even if it does "reflect something about the human experience that cuts across completely different cultures".
Case in point- the historical bias against left-handed people. The fact that this irrational fear has been propagated by countries and cultures too numerous to count, from Taiwan to Malawi [1], does not make it more valid or worthy of propagation. It might just mean that all these cultures have similar flaws to address.
Surprised no one is telling you that countries face enormous trade pressure and potentially sanctions if they don't follow the USA's lead on drug legalization status.
It’s even more ridiculous when you learn that there is a prescription form of medical THC, fully legal and authorized under the FDA and DEA rules. And it’s a schedule III.
This timing is responsive to public opinion, and in fact is still even risky for Biden. The problem is that while marijuana legalization carries a modest majority, that’s split between the parties. As of 2024, over a quarter of Democrats still oppose legalizing marijuana for recreational use: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/03/26/most-america....
That makes any national movement on marijuana risky for Biden. Biden cannot win reelection without winning a super majority of Hispanics, the majority of whom oppose recreational marijuana. Maybe Biden figures he’s cooked in Arizona and Nevada anyway, and this is his play for cross-pressured voters in whiter than average states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where abortion has been flipping many Obama-Trump voters back lately.
But zooming out, this phenomenon will exist in any representative democracy with political parties. A policy with 57% support that carries an overwhelming majority of one party has a much better chance than a policy with 57% split between the parties.
> less than half of Hispanics support legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Hispanics (and Asians) support recreational marijuana legalization at only marginally higher rates than Republicans.
Quite possibly, but is there any sort of cross sectioning that to religious beliefs and/or existing political affiliations in the data set?
I say it that way because, the more devout Catholics may very well support abortion bans and keeping Marijuana completely illegal...
But let's remember the reality of this change; it is NOT legalization, it is simply moved to schedule 3 federally.
IMHO, if the population who decides that is 'past the line' or gets fooled to think it is full legalization gets in a tizzy and everything goes its up again...
Idk what to say at that point.
I agree there is risk but the bigger risk is long term blowback if it becomes a big pharma cash grab.
> Quite possibly, but is there any sort of cross sectioning that to religious beliefs and/or existing political affiliations in the data set?
Biden won over 60% of Hispanics in 2020. Even if every one of the 45% who support recreational marijuana voted for him in 2020, he has to win over a quarter of those who oppose that policy.
Regardless, my main point is that it’s misleading to assert that this change was somehow delayed despite “overwhelming public support.” Even today this is not a risk-free move for Biden. That’s not a fault of the governmental system, that’s just how coalition politics works. Even at age 40, I wouldn’t confess to ever having tried marijuana (I tried an edible once in DC where it’s legal) to anyone in my family. But they’re the same immigrants who flipped Virginia blue.
> Biden won over 60% of Hispanics in 2020. Even if every one of the 45% who support recreational marijuana voted for him in 2020, he has to win over a quarter of those who oppose that policy.
Per my comment however, Schedule 3 is nowhere near 'go into a store and buy it' federally speaking. If people see this as full decrim/rec they are in for what may be an extremely rude awakening (best worst scenario, everything is in state only, worst worst scenario, pharma strong arms in.)
Why do you think it was delayed until this year, an election year? One reason this is something I’m filing under scummy politicians trying to get votes rather than someone trying to right a horrible decades old wrong.
I don’t care at all why they do it. I don’t care if they hate that they’re doing it. If they do the things I want and don’t do the things I don’t want then, well, that’s pretty good.
Also of note: Donald Trump could’ve done this to score some coolness points in his re-election year, and he didn’t.
Let's not bring Trump into this, or anything at all, I certainly wasn't suggesting he's good because the current guy is bad. Personally I find both major party candidates are unacceptable and will vote against both of them third party.
Delayed? They have been working on this declassification for years now. It wasn't a secret. All the work to drag the bureaucratic sledge had to be done.
Nvm...you are just trolling for another conspiracy until they finally nail Hunter.
Reclassifying marijuana would make it legal for recreational use, and that only barely a majority position even in 2024: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/03/26/most-america... (about 57%). More than a quarter of Biden’s own party still opposes such a move.
I guess it depends on how you define “moderate.” I’d say it’s something the middle third of the public agrees with. Marijuana isn’t there yet.
Looking at those stats, only 11% fully oppose. The 57% is for recreation and medical, 32% for only medical. So it seems like your bending the truth for your argument, which doesn't surprise me since you're a lawyer.
I said that the 57% was for recreational use right in my original comment. I think it’s fair to say that what the weed legalization people really want is legalization for recreational use. And also that people who are only okay with legalizing for medical use are at odds with the weed legalization movement overall. Heck, even I don’t have a problem with marijuana being used as a treatment for glaucoma or a pain killer for cancer patients.
Schedule 3 is the same as ketamine, hardly "legal for recreational use". Rescheduling marijuana is a milquetoast moderate move far short of legalization.
My dude, liberals are moderates. The only way you can think otherwise is if you're so far to the right that you've lost perspective. Biden is a typical center-right moderate liberal which is exactly what most Democrats are.
Democrats are only “center right” if you focus on economic issues, which isn’t actually where they spend their political capital. Democrats are to the left of the French when it comes to issues like abortion, race relations, immigration, rioting, and similar social order issues. Case in point: marijuana is still illegal in France, even for medical use.
U.S. Democrats are in fact radical about these issues, insofar as they see them as matters of fundamental morality that are outside the political process altogether. In virtually all of Europe, for example, it is well accepted that abortion is a type of social regulation that can be put to a vote just like any other type of social regulation. But U.S. Democrats denounce putting abortion to a vote as a “far right” position.
These two comments are a perfect summary of why I stopped debating politics online with anyone.
A good 50% of the online crowd, on both sides (left/right) are *absolutely delusional* when it comes to political perception.
On the right you'll hear Biden is too far left because of the massive public spending, the aggressive NLRB policies favoring labor, the support to unions, anti free trade policy, neo-brandeis antitrust, trans rights speeches and wealth tax support.
On the left you'll hear Biden is actually a neoliberal or center right, because of his stance on Israel, his belief that welfare capitalism is better than socialism, his belief in economic growth and innovation, his past ties with the banking sector, his 1994 crime bill and support for the police, pragmatic climate policy, etc.
When debating online half the time you're just trying to filter out completely delusional beliefs, and it's tiring.
1. In the US, we tried to make alcohol illegal, and failed so abjectly that nobody wants to try that again.
2. There’s a decent argument to be made, that in a counterfactual world where alcohol hadn’t been discovered yet, that if we invented it today we would immediately label it so obviously harmful that it should be banned. But we don’t live in that world.
3. While it’s hard to discuss whether this or that individual psychoactive drug should be legal, it’s relatively easier to evaluate whether they’re more or less harmful than alcohol. For example, coffee: clearly less; heroin: clearly more.
4. Besides the fact that prohibition failed, everyone sort of likes freedom? Like, yes, there must be limits, but those limits should be so much on the far side of what ordinary people consider acceptable that they never even have to think, “will the government let me do this?” That seems like a good guiding principle.
5. So here is the Schelling point: everything less harmful than, up to and including alcohol, should be legal, and everything more harmful should be illegal.
6. Like most Schelling points, the results favored by this rule are arbitrary, but the reason we ought to stick to it is not that it’s a good rule per se, but rather that it’s a rule which is easier to find agreement on.
So everything less harmful than alcohol should be legal, and everything more harmful should be banned. Thanks for reading. Have fun, everyone!
If anything, it should help push out the poorly understood non-delta-9 THC variants that currently only exist because they're not technically illegal. I want real cannabis available for legal purchase, not the lookalikes that come in vaporizer packages (delta-8, THC-P, HHC, etc).
Lookalikes were the market response, they fulfilled demands of people that want to get away from the industrial strength THC market. "Real cannabis" isn't what you think it is
No, just a foreigner from a country where people aren’t anti-social libertines. It’s not an uncommon sentiment even in the west. Sweden is still staunchly anti-drug (precisely because it’s relatively collectivist for a western country).
It is not a useful word, and you should immediately stop using it. It's a word an ordinary person would use only if they were deliberately trying to rile people up, which is antithetical to what we're trying to do here.
Corporal punishment is a harm-reducing alternative to prison for anti-social behavior and petty crimes. It’s used effectively in Singapore, which is one of the most orderly and civilized countries in the world.
Neither is stress. Turns out that's super bad for your health. When I was a kid, I was straight laced and couldn't understand why my parents smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol. After 20+ years of real-world experience, I no longer question it. The world often sucks. Life often sucks. It's much more difficult for me now to begrudge folks the little things they can do to make their lives more bearable.
If you perceive life and the world sucking, weed will not be what you need to realize that this is a falsehood. In fact you'd most likely reach for it to indulge in that mentality.
It's a popular opinion that THC is harmless. For those that suffer from an addiction it is assuredly not despite pure sources. I'm glad for the reclassification but I am concerned for those that need help but don't know it yet.
Which is why this move is a no-brainer. It isn’t legalising. It isn’t even decriminalising. But it’s recognising that a lot of people smoke weed and do fine, which isn’t to say everyone does, but it’s sure of a hell a smaller fraction than people who try smoking crack.
I think it's at least better to have real delta-9 THC (and real unadulterated flower) available for legal purchase instead of the endless poorly studied THC lookalikes that have flooded into the market.
