• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    There’s two things this changes.

    1. Easier to research.

    2. We get a lot less tax money from it.

    For 1, it’s not that much of a gain, we don’t need more studies to show it’s safe. That’s been accomplished, and it wasn’t that hard to do a study the last couple years.

    For 2, tax money was the biggest reason states could be convinced to legalize.

    There’s a little bit of a 3 involved. I forget the specifics from an earlier article, but I read something about while a lower schedule may let them transition from cash only to banking, the DEA can still seize all their funds because it’s on the schedule. It’s just now they can do it from a computer.

    When they don’t use banks, at least the DEA had to actually show up and steal seize their cash.

    So say a Republican takes office and is pissed at Cali, he can tell the DEA to freeze and seize the bank accounts of every business and person connected to the cannabis industry.

    And it’d all be 100% legal, take very little effort, and can easily be converted into some kind of “border security” bullshit like building a giant pointless wall.

    I dunno, lately I keep getting frustrated at people never realizing what shit can naturally lead to. Maybe my standards for planning ahead need lowered?

    I just don’t understand why this is acceptable when Biden told us decriminalization was the goal.

    A co.plete removal from the schedule would have been that, and would have accomplished a lot and taken the same effort as this. I don’t see why we don’t try to actually fix shit.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Hey a half a loaf. Its Zenos paradox of legalization. With progress like this, in another 40 years we’ll be another halfway there to legalization.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Its 10 years too late for anyone to care I think. Democrats should have just straight up legalized under Obama, and even if they legalized now, they aren’t going to be making major points off this politically. Its just jerk-off material for the commentary crowd. If it isn’t going to make a difference to peoples lived experience, it isn’t worth pursuing.

        • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You guys seem to think that the democrats had a fillabuster proof majority the entirety of obama’s terms.

          They had two years. In those two years, they spent their capital on getting the ACA passed.

          Then the 2010 midterms happened, and the dems lost any chance of anything meaningful happening.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            And you seem to think two years is basically no time at all. Think about how much awful shit Republicans got up to under Trump. Approximately half of that got done in a two year period and that was even a historically deadlocked Congress. Democrats lost in 2010 precisely because two years is a long time and the best thing they got out of it was a shitty healthcare plan that, more than anything, ensured our current unsustainable system stays in place for at least another generation.

            Democrats are obviously much better than Republicans in basically every sense of the word, but Republicans get their legislation passed when they have the chance and Democrats trip all over themselves trying to appease the idiots who will never join their coalition. They could learn a lot from Republicans about pushing their agenda but it seems pretty clear by now they aren’t going to.

            • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yep, it’s amazing what you can do if you ignore laws, lock out the opposite side, control all three branches of government, and literally pass shit with stuff penciled in on the side.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                If Democrats are incapable of governing when given the power, maybe we should stop voting for them.

                There is no point in empowering someone with my vote if they can’t do anything with it once they’ve taken power.

                Republicans have gotten more done in minority positions than Democrats have when in majority position over the past 20 years.

                Democrats are conveniently bad at this shit when it comes to getting the things their voters want done, done. When it comes to getting shit Republicans want done, they are also conveniently powerless.

                Maybe we shouldn’t vote for Democrats.

          • Krono@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Two years of a filibuster proof majority for a president elected on hope and change, and the best they can do is a conservative healthcare plan, packed with giveaways for the big insurers.

            That’s when I lost all faith in the democratic party.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Calm down.

        The world doesn’t actually improve in fits an starts. Incrementalism is a fallacy. The world improves in large sweeping movements that are eventually ground backwards. We make major improvement through bold action, not trivial improvements.

        I have no obligation to support a muted political movement incapable of accomplishing its purported objectives.

        US Democrats could have done this a decade ago. They could have codified abortion rights. They could have made so many things a priority: they choose not to. I owe nothing to a failed approach to politics.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          US Democrats could have done this a decade ago. They could have codified abortion rights. They could have made so many things a priority: they choose not to. I owe nothing to a failed approach to politics.

          I must correct you there. There is a theory that says that politics has to fulfill the will of its average voter. It can not lean further left than that. Otherwise it looses voters on the righter side.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            What you have is a convenient and wrong interpretation of how politics work.

            Its interesting that when its a step in the authoritarian or right-wing direction, its always possible. When its a step towards humanism or the left, its never possible or only ever an epsilon of progress.

            Why do you think that is?

            The fallacy thats baked into your thinking that causes you to make this mistake is shown by this assumption you make:

            Otherwise it looses voters on the righter side.

            The idea that voters exist along a symmetrical distribution is the mistake you are making. People are not randomly coming up with their beliefs and there is no reason you should assume it would follow a gaussian.

            Its a persistent and wrong assumption, that resulted in the kind of demonstrated impotence of the American Democrats.

            Interestingly, the American Right wing doesn’t share that belief around real-politik. And because they don’t make this wrong assumption, their voters actually get the policy decisions they want into law.