3 ms·
Or... just decriminalize it altogether, including forgiveness of past use.
by tracker1 3y ago
Or... just decriminalize it altogether, including forgiveness of past use.
- gremlinsinc 3y agoNah, it's too hard a drug -- makes people too violent, and abusive... oh sorry. That's alcohol.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- janalsncm 3y agoIt’s ironic that the CIA may ask people to travel to countries where alcohol is illegal but don’t disqualify for it.
- mrguyorama 3y agoI mean, typically spying in another country is outright illegal, so the CIA is asking you to commit crimes in other countries as a matter of course.
- janalsncm 3y agoYes, I suppose the drinking alcohol bit is small in comparison to the espionage.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Or… just decriminalize it altogether, including forgiveness of past use. They kind of have done the first part, in effect, “marijuana” and “hemp” being legally distinct, and it being possible to get all the pharmacologically interesting bits for which marijuana is sought in forms that are legally “hemp”.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAs long as republicans continue to say no to that, it's impossible to do. Democrats basically never have actual control over the American Government, it's happened like 4 years out of the past 20, and that's not a new phenomenon. Even in the times they have had "full" control of all portions of government, republican senators are still able to "block" stuff through made up rules and "norms" that democrats don't want to break, because that gives republicans cart blanche to break those same rules in a way that can do a lot more harm. Also like 4 of the democrats that are part of the "majority" for various reasons like to be contrarians to the rest of the party, meaning even the few times there have been a majority of democrats in the senate, there has not been consensus in the party for basically anything since probably FDR.
- lowbloodsugar 3y agoOh sweet summer child. The Democrats have absolutely been in a position do this, but they did not, because they would lose that voting block. They need the issue. It will become legal once big pharma and big tobacco have decided they want it to happen, regardless of who is in charge.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Democrats have absolutely been in a position do this, but they did not, because they would lose that voting block. They need the issue. Correct on the first, wrong on the second. Stockpiling issues doesn't work in U.S. politics: it's how you get primaried. The truth: there are enough Democrats in competitive districts where legalized marijuana would lose them the next general. It's a majority of the minority problem. Not anything strategic.
- cute_boi 3y agodems can do many thing, but they don't because they need something for next election.
- mrguyorama 3y ago[flagged]
- pythonguython 3y agoI agree, but these are two separate issues. Clearances can be denied for a variety of reasons. Something being considered a “security risk” is not necessarily related to its legal status.
- RyanAdamas 3y agoIt requires the approval of the United Nations Economic and Social Counsel's Commission on Narcotic Drugs to remove a schedule 1 item from a member countries drug schedules provided the World Health Organization approves any uses as medicinal. They schedule drugs through Article 6 of our Constitution which makes treaties law of the land. Our ability to change drug laws in the US is outsourced to the UN. It's not a "Republican or Democrat" issue specifically. Though, the prison system that is increasingly private which makes money hand over fist on drug users and pushers certainly is an issue either political party could champion and change.
- tracker1 3y agoCongress ratifies treaties, they can un-ratify or override them.