5 ms·
CA Gov. Newsom vetoes bill that would have decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms
- h2odragon 3y agoPreparing for a Presidential run, isn't he. No principle need be served by these actions. He can even be aggravating his supporters with them, its not like they'll vote for someone else. The important thing is getting his name in the news. Bonus points for doing it in some context that makes him seem a little more "centrist" or can be spun that way in the upcoming campaign. Does Biden go down easy, or hard? Don't think Newsom would be flapping his wings like this if he didn't see the big rooster's perch being empty soon. Think he's been told he'll be the Party Choice already.
- parineum 3y agoNewsom has so much baggage a presidential run for him is a pipe dream. A pipe dream that he's clinging to but a pipe dream nonetheless.
- ncallaway 3y agoYou think more or less baggage than the presumptive Republican nominee?
- api 3y agoTrumps baggage doesn’t matter as much because he has a cult that will vote for him literally no matter what. They’ve even been presented with equally or even more right wing candidates and have rejected them for Trump. It’s not even about the politics. It’s about their desire for a strong man ruler.
- notpachet 3y agoA pipe dream, or a shroom trip
- LapsangGuzzler 3y agoI’m very skeptical of this, I think he’s slowly raising his profile for a 2028 run. He’s categorically denied over and over again that he’s interested in forcing Biden into a primary and I think it’s a misread to see this as anything more than a governor doing their job. He’s never left any ambiguity in his answers on this topic.
- dataflow 3y agoVP?
- LapsangGuzzler 3y agoThat, I could see.
- HWR_14 3y agoNo. VP-replacement speculation always happens, but the actual replacement doesn't in the modern era. Besides, there is no political way that, should the position become vacant, Biden would choose a white man to replace Harris.
- dataflow 3y agoNote I meant that it might be to be able to run for VP, not that he'd necessarily win the position if he did so.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HWR_14 3y agoYou no longer run for VP. In the modern era the presidential candidate just chooses who they want.
- dataflow 3y agoBy "run" I just meant that he'd appear in the set of people that might be considered (by Biden) if for any reason it turns out he wants Harris replaced.
- alexb_ 3y agoNewsom has "California" next to his name, which is disqualifying for a presidential run as far as I can see it. Too many independents with the opinion that "Newsom made Cali a shithole"
- asveikau 3y agoI think it's mostly Republicans with this view. Anyway, I think national voters are mainly unfamiliar with Newsom, and once he gets exposure he'll be well received. His performance on Hannity is one example of this.
- kaladin-jasnah 3y agoI've met Democrats from California with this view as well.
- asveikau 3y agoThose people have been brainwashed by conservatives. I believe Newsom still got handily elected throughout the state, though.
- HWR_14 3y agoGavin Newsom cannot be reelected as Governor of California. There is no Senate election the year his term is up, and he appointed both Senators he would be running against so that seems like an unlikely avenue anyway. It seems like the only career progression he has is to go national. I don't think that means he's running for president in 2024. I think it means he's auditioning for a cabinet position to be able to keep his name in the news until 2028.
- euniceee3 3y agoYou can buy mushrooms legally less than a mile from the White House.
- dotcoma 3y agoDoes this mean we’ll see fewer unicorns? ;)
- huytersd 3y agoOne singular shroom can get you through a whole year of microdosing. (I kid, I kid)
- whalesalad 3y ago“California should immediately begin work to set up regulated treatment guidelines - replete with dosing information, therapeutic guidelines, rules to prevent against exploitation during guided treatments, and medical clearance of no underlying psychoses," aka my constituents want to profit from this so let's pump the brakes until they can get that configured
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoI think it's more that he's planning to run for president. He doesn't care about what's good for California - only what's good for his presidential campaign in 2028.
- AnotherGoodName 3y agoTotal outsider to this political landscape but is it possible the law was very badly written that it needed the veto and a statement that's essentially 'go back and fix this'? I feel like this thread is so full of disillusionment of politics that there's zero trust. Which I get but how would a well intentioned politician avoid this suspicion of corruption?
- newswasboring 3y ago> Which I get but how would a well intentioned politician avoid this suspicion of corruption? By thoroughly explaining the actions. I think this decision feels under justified
- AnotherGoodName 3y agoStepping into this thread no one's really talking to that nuance of motivation though. It's all about underhanded motives. Which is concerning because a country won't function without some level of trust in it's leadership.
- crazygringo 3y agoWhat specifically is under justified? Seems pretty thoroughly explained to me. You can certainly disagree with his view/action, but his position and his reasons seem crystal clear.
- Simulacra 3y agoHe could be moderating his positions in consideration of running for a higher office
- busymom0 3y ago100%. He has just recently changed his position on many topics. Trying to appear more "moderate".
- api 3y agoAbsolutely. If he runs Republicans are going to saturate the airwaves with the hordes of drug addicts living on the street in San Francisco. That won’t play well anywhere. It’s not really Newsom’s fault since he is not SF city council but people won’t notice that. Anything seen as being soft on or pro drug will be toxic to him.
- kristopolous 3y agoAnd this is yet again why I'm on the left and not a liberal. Drug problems are solved by better access to quality health care and not punitive policing This action commits state resources and funds to snatching people up, so it's not like we can't afford the better way - we're just allocating our people and efforts to ineffective methods. Chasing around users to lock them in cages for 20 years is way more expensive than actually solving the problem of abuse. The only reason a better way stays impossible is because there's an ideological commitment on the part of mainstream political beliefs to keeping it impossible.
- wombat-man 3y agoI mean they aren't even bothering to go after opiate users in CA at least based on anecdotes I've heard. Maybe official decriminalization is a step too far for newsom.
- ssalka 3y agoThere is a big difference between opiates, which are widely abused, and psychedelics, which have far lesser risk of abuse and are generally safer physically to consume. I agree with caesil that this is posturing to support his presidential run, whether for public perception or lobbying/fundraising reasons.
- caesil 3y agoThis has nothing to do with the center left versus the far left and everything to do with the fact that Gavin Newsom personally wants to run for president.
- meroes 3y ago(Sarcastically) Agreed! There’s lots of hit pieces against Newsom getting lots of air time! On Reddit there were 3-4 different ones on most news subs and then the Israel-Palestine news took over everything on Reddit. Man I need to get off social media as it’s completely overrun with moneyed/political interests.
- civilitty 3y agoThis is the bill Newsom vetoed: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB58 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... The Legislative Counsel’s digest at the top is a very accessible summary of the bill. The meat of the summary being: (1) Existing law categorizes certain drugs and other substances as controlled substances and prohibits various actions related to those substances, including their manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and ingestion. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the possession, preparation, obtaining, or transportation of, specified quantities of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline, for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older. The bill would provide penalties for possession of these substances on school grounds, or possession by, or transferring to, persons under 21 years of age. The bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a workgroup to study and make recommendations on the establishment of a framework governing the therapeutic use, including facilitated or supported use, of those substances. The bill would require that workgroup to send a report to the Legislature containing those recommendations on or before January 1, 2025. Given that last paragraph about HHS coming up with guidelines, I’m skeptical of his reasoning. The rest of the bill looks well written as it was probably created by the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel, an office of the legislature.
- jedberg 3y agoFor those of you not familiar with California politics, this has nothing to do with him running for President. The Prison Guard union is one of the strongest in the state. They are against decriminalization because it means fewer inmates, which is bad for their union members. This is 100% the doing of the Prison Guard union.
- wilg 3y agoThis smells fishy.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoThose mushrooms can cure conditions treated by the drugs manufactured by the pharmaceutical cartel.
- honkycat 3y agoWhat can you even say at this point? Absolutely shameful. Clearly decriminalization is the correct thing to do here. Adults should be able to do what they want. ( Within reason, clearly fent should not be publicly available. ) Zero connection between the desires of our people and what our government does.
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoWhy would you want more drugs on the street in CA? SF needs more schizophrenia?