850
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday called on the federal government to move “as quickly as possible” to change the way it officially classifies marijuana, saying that “nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.”

“I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible,” Harris said. “We need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment. This issue is stark when one considers the fact that on the schedule currently, marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin ― as dangerous as heroin ― and more dangerous than fentanyl, which is absurd, not to mention patently unfair.”

Marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule 1 drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration. That classification designates it one of the most dangerous drugs possible, with no medicinal uses. Other substances in the same category include heroin, ecstasy and LSD. Marijuana advocates have been pushing for years for the federal government to either reschedule marijuana to a different category or deschedule it entirely.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 168 points 7 months ago

Harris oversaw more than 1,900 marijuana convictions in San Francisco, previously unreported records from the DA’s office show. Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.

As the political winds blow with her I guess. At least it's a positive change.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 123 points 7 months ago

Eh.

That was when it went from jail to a fine though.

So lots of people stopped giving a shit and started smoking publicly.

And she's been pro legalization for years now.

There's lots of shit to criticize Biden and Harris on, but Harris's time as a DA and her cannabis conviction just isn't a good one.

[-] ArcRay@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 7 months ago

"Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for marijuana offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.[73] The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[73] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and go her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses."

From her Wikipedia page (the reference is pay walled and im not invested enough to figure it out).

[-] drislands@lemmy.world 56 points 7 months ago

Sometimes a hypocrite is just a man in the process of changing.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 35 points 7 months ago

Or this is what she wants the law to be, that was what she did when her job was to enforce the law that existed back then.

[-] Catoblepas 16 points 7 months ago

DAs always have discretion in what cases to drop or move forward, along with being able to offer plea bargains. They aren’t legally required to prosecute everyone who smokes weed, it’s just good optics to a certain political class to do so. And that political class was a much bigger tent even 10-15 years ago.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 91 points 7 months ago

“Somebody ought to do something about this ASAP,” says one of the only people on the planet actually capable of doing something about it for the last 4 years. OK.

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 55 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Elections are coming up so it's time to talk about it and do nothing else that would make it happen

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago

Biden could order cannabis descheduled ( what his campaign program was) and if agencies don't listen, fucking fire the agency heads and hire someone that will. It literally one of the handful of things he could do himself.

But somehow it's 3.5 years into his first term. And Biden has apparently compromised even more with himself and we won't get his original compromise of descheduling.

When a president acts like this right before their next election, lots of voters rationally stop believing any of their current campaign promises.

[-] zigmus64@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

What do you mean? This is standard political fare… most of the population has the memory of a goldfish, so popular shit like this always waits until the election cycle.

Additionally, an executive order, or changing the chief of the DEA, are probably the least effective ways to handle it. All it would take is a republican administration to undo it all. The way that sticks best is legislation.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

Your boat is leaking.

Do you either bail out the water, or try to get into port so you can fix it.

Or maybe, you do both. Biden can reschedule…. Today. He could have done it 3.5 years ago.

He hasn’t. He probably won’t.

You’re right that legislation is a more permanent fix. No question there. Doesn’t mean you don’t work the other, faster, solution to get something good enough for the time being done.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 22 points 7 months ago

It’s honestly just insulting at this point. Deschedule the fucking plant already, you doddering old fools.

When you’re done, we can have a frank conversation about the number of people directly killed by alcohol each year. (It’s literally infinitely more compared to marijuana.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 83 points 7 months ago

"nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed"

-The person who made a career putting people in jail for smoking weed

[-] MDKAOD@lemmy.ml 33 points 7 months ago

Harris has been pro weed for years now. One of the foremost issues with our political system in the US is that these people are elected by a constituency that demands a job be done in a way that they want. (I am purposely ignoring the corporate donor aspect for this statement)

The locality (and the era) demanded drug dealers go to jail, so she did her job. Where Harris has floundered is how she talks about it and attonrs for it today.

You can be outspoken about a politicians past, but it's disingenuous to ignore that a politician has changed, especially so if they have changed with positive progression.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 7 months ago

Hey now, the hate boner doesn’t get off on logic, it gets off on mindless hate.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 61 points 7 months ago

I unironically think that if marijuana should be banned, then so should alcohol

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 48 points 7 months ago

If they were both first introduced today alcohol would definitely be the one people would want more restricted.

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Alcohol can kill you pretty quickly if you're not careful, IMO it probably should be more restricted than weed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zozano@lemy.lol 15 points 7 months ago

Absolutely not true.

As soon as republicans discover it's easier to convince underaged girls to fuck them if they're drunk, it's going legal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 52 points 7 months ago

For the, "why are you doing it now, convenient!" crowd - first of all yes, that's how politics works. Trump is a constant heartbeat of bullshit and you need to have strategically timed news and events to stay in people's short term memories for voting impact - especially the committed stoners :)

But also, Biden admin has been working towards this for years. He is not the most progressive anything, but he's doing more than his predecessors on either side (and the pathetic gop alternative) and that's progress.

You don't make major legislative change by firing a cannon at the front door - you set several small fires at all the other exits on the building and then when all that is in motion, you just knock on the front door to warn everyone about the fire and they walk out willingly.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/marijuana-decriminalization-white-house-joe-biden/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221230390/biden-pardons-clemency-marijuana-drug-offenses

On December 2, 2022, Biden signed the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act - "the first standalone marijuana-related bill approved by both chambers of the United States Congress"

Biden approved the Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange work Russia on December 8, 2022 which involved an American WNBA athlete being convicted of cannabis possession on Russian soil and being held in Russian prison.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

None of this matters. This could all be over tomorrow if Biden gave orders to the dea. Pretending this even has anything to do with Congress or the courts is a joke.

This is purely a scheduling issue.

[-] flerp@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago

Anything he orders can be unordered...

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 50 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You know, this is a pretty smart way to approach the political side of this tactically.

Biden can't say deschedule it outright without offending at least some borderline fence sitters and the elder crowd indoctrinated with the old propaganda that made it out to be among the most terrible things.

By having the younger VP who wouldn't really have direct authority to have it changed but is directly I'm the same circles, it gets the idea out there as a 'very strong unofficial stance'.

Next step, the 'cool grandpa' moment when Biden gets to make a gesture for the younger crowd by having it pulled from the schedules. Financially the feds have undoubtedly been eyeing the income (and lack of incarceration costs) brought into states with legal sales for a while and would like a piece of it too.

[-] Troooop@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Biden already ordered his health secretary back in 2022 to begin descheduling, he hasn't been playing it safe here

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] capital@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I grew up straight edge in a religious household. I was so afraid of getting into trouble, I didn't even drink as a teenager even though all my friends did.

Now my work depends on me keeping away from illegal drugs. Seeing as my family's livelihood depends on that, it's a pretty straightforward decision to never cross that line, ever. So I say this as a 30+ yr old who's rarely drank and never done drugs of any kind that weren't prescribed.

If this changes, and it's confirmed that my livelihood wouldn't be threatened for trying it, I would absolutely partake.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago

Just so everyone knows, the DEA is actively reviewing a report from the Department of Health and Human services where they recommended to reschedule weed to a schedule 3. Biden had directed HHS to research to see if it should be rescheduled, so while biden hasn't unilaterally legalized weed (something that would quickly be challenged in court since presidents don't usually have unilateral power for most things), he has definitely been pushing it not be schedule 1. Which, while not legalization, would be a huge step for not just the industry but for all the medical patients out there who have had their doctors refuse to treat them because they use weed for pain.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

So instead of descheduling it, he's looking into maybe one day thinking about starting the process of still keeping it illegal, but not as illegal.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Biden cannot de-schedule it. At most, he could issue an executive order telling the DEA to stop pursuing marijuana charges. Even if he did, the next president could just undo that. Biden is doing what he can which is calling for the AG to reschedule the drug.

There are only two ways weed can be de/rescheduled. First, is for congress to pass legislation doing so which then would need to be signed by the president. Congress is not going to do that. It's been attempted multiple times and has never come anywhere near passing. They pretty much all died in committee.

The second way is the way mandated by by the Controlled Substances Act. That laws states that, first, someone must file a petition with the attorney general, or the AG could initiate the process themselves. The AG then sends the request to HHS Secretary to start a scientific and medical evaluation of the request. HHS and FDA then conduct an assessment and sends a recommendation to the AG. Meanwhile, the AG/DEA conduct their own review of the request. Assuming everyone agrees, the AG then initiates the standard rule making process following the Administrative Procedures Act and the White House, after it's own review and the change can be made.

This article has a lovely, if disheartening flowchart of the process. It is a convoluted bureaucracy, but there is hope since the process was started in 2022 when President Biden instructed HHS to conduct a review into rescheduling marijuana.

HHS has since completed their review and sent a formal recommendation to the Attorney General on August 29 of 2023 recommending that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III. The ball is currently in the DEA's court. They have to conduct their own review and rumor has it that there are those within the DEA who disagree with Biden's push to reschedule weed. Still, with at least half the states allowing some form of legal access to marijuana, and the FDA having approved at least one drug derived from marijuana, they will be hard pressed to find some compelling reason to go against the HHS recommendation.

Of course, I think it's only too clear that the DEA is likely to strongly oppose this change and there are rumors that this is the case. Now it's just a matter of the DEA dragging it's feet before making an official announcement.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nomous@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yarr@feddit.nl 34 points 7 months ago

zzzz Wake me up when they actually do something

This is so cheap. They want the credit for fixing something without the effort of getting it done

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 29 points 7 months ago

If democrats can't get this done ahead of the election it will be criminally negligent

[-] Daxtron2@startrek.website 25 points 7 months ago

They've had 4 years, it's already negligent

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 16 points 7 months ago

Donald Trump came into office and had both Houses.

Never even mentioned weed, unless it was to talk about how users should be executed.

But I'm sure he'll change next time

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Zink@programming.dev 27 points 7 months ago

I barely touched weed my whole life until I got medical access ~5 years ago. I was also never a big drinker or user of other recreational substances.

The stuff helps me so much that I use my vape or edibles almost every single day. That plus the margin of safety makes it downright cruel in my eyes that it’s prohibited in so many places.

But I guess given the racist motives of the anti-marijuana push 40 years ago, maybe the cruelty was the point.

[-] LadyAutumn 26 points 7 months ago

I'm glad they want to change that. I hope they do. Far too many people, especially minorities, serving sentences for weed. It does feel like a bit of a hollow victory when women's rights are being rolled back to the 19th century, though.

[-] mellowheat@suppo.fi 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Kamala Harris promised to reschedule it right the following day after Biden has won the presidential elections. She added, "and if you don't like the idea of marijuana being rescheduled", and loudly winked three times.

[-] abracaDavid@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

"oh shit! They're onto us about the TikTok thing! Quick! Bring up weed! The zoomers and millennials love that shit!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

"Move as quickly as possible " it is imperative so I can get reelected!

[-] mikezane@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 months ago

Let's hope more politicians don't do things that the majority of the people want in order to be reelected, what a terrible world that would be.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

Well I don't do drugs but she could schedule it for tomorrow after breakfast. I know my neighbor smokes it after work for example. 😂.

[-] Clbull@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think if Biden and Harris were to officially endorse decriminalizing or legalizing recreational marijuana, we'd see a Democrat landslide. But that would require some actual common sense from Congressmen.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

Honestly, there are many other substances that need to be changed as well, but they need to start somewhere. The War on (Some) Drugs is and always has been a complete farce.

[-] havokdj@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

LSD and mushrooms too. MDMA is a bit sideways but psychedelics in general should not be illegal

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago

Oh wow, you maybe might possibly might think about trying to potential maybe do something. And just in time when you need support, how coincidental. End the drug war. Give us healthcare. Provide education and forgive the previous loans taken in order to do so. Fucking do something.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
850 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4557 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS