Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

3,651 to 3,700 of 4,260 << first < prev | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
By simply changing the classification of the drug from Schedule I to something with defined medical benefits you could have had medical testing on the benefits of cannabis at this very moment. Right now it's impossible to prove or disprove how harmless it is. He had the power to do so with an administrative action.

I don't believe that is accurate.

Nothing I have seen suggests that the President can reclassify a drug personally. The attorney general may remove a drug from the list if they find that it does not meet the requirements, but they can't just reclassify it... and the President isn't supposed to interfere with AG decision making on that kind of thing (someone should tell The Donald).

The DEA could certainly do it, but Leonhart was fervently anti-marijuana. Some argued that Obama should have fired her to get action taken, but again... he wasn't Trump. He actually supported an impartial DOJ (including the FBI & DEA). Further, HAD he done any such thing the GOP would have screamed their heads off about the 'improper interference'... though they're now cool with massively larger breaches.

Well this isn't my system of government so I had to look it up: There are two ways by which the scheduling of marijuana can be changed: congressional action and administrative action.

I think that's a reputable source.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The DEA gets funding based on their role in enforcement and investigation. If a widely-used drug suddenly gets decriminalized, what happens to their department? It's in their interest to keep promoting the idea that marijuana is a massively dangerous drug at the center of big criminal syndicates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jesse Heinig wrote:
The DEA gets funding based on their role in enforcement and investigation. If a widely-used drug suddenly gets decriminalized, what happens to their department? It's in their interest to keep promoting the idea that marijuana is a massively dangerous drug at the center of big criminal syndicates.

Thats how we got the war on pot in the first place Prohibition agents didn't want to be out of a job.


Jesse Heinig wrote:
The DEA gets funding based on their role in enforcement and investigation. If a widely-used drug suddenly gets decriminalized, what happens to their department? It's in their interest to keep promoting the idea that marijuana is a massively dangerous drug at the center of big criminal syndicates.

See I feel like there is still plenty of other drugs to pick on.

Frankly For myself I'm against drugs I don't even take a aspirin unless im desperate. However I don't care what anyone else does with them just keep them away from children and don't let people drive while their intoxicated and frankly I say do what you want.

Sovereign Court

I don't think the DEA has a say in the scheduling of drugs in the US, they're strictly in charge of enforcement. According to the article I linked it's the Attorney General acting on the recommendation of Health and Human Services, or it's done through Congress.

Liberty's Edge

Guy Humual wrote:
I don't think the DEA has a say in the scheduling of drugs in the US, they're strictly in charge of enforcement. According to the article I linked it's the Attorney General acting on the recommendation of Health and Human Services, or it's done through Congress.

You apparently missed this part;

"The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition."

In any case, notice the complete absence of the President from this decision making process. Ergo, no, Obama did not have "the power to do so".

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I don't think the DEA has a say in the scheduling of drugs in the US, they're strictly in charge of enforcement. According to the article I linked it's the Attorney General acting on the recommendation of Health and Human Services, or it's done through Congress.

You apparently missed this part;

"The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition."

In any case, notice the complete absence of the President from this decision making process. Ergo, no, Obama did not have "the power to do so".

Does the President not have the authority to order HHR and the AG to conduct a review? Are you saying that they are completely independent and do whatever they want? I was under the impression that they usually follow the President's agenda.

Liberty's Edge

Guy Humual wrote:
Does the President not have the authority to order HHR and the AG to conduct a review? Are you saying that they are completely independent and do whatever they want?

No, I'm saying that the only means the president has of forcing them to do what he wants is to fire them and appoint someone more likely to follow his agenda... which falls somewhere between 'potential abuse of power for the other party to complain about' and 'impeachable offense', depending on the circumstances.

While pressuring or replacing the HHS secretary would not be as big a deal as doing so to the AG it really doesn't matter as the AG would need to sign off on anything from HHS in reference to drug classification. Presidents messing with any sort of law enforcement official is a big no no... cf. Trump and Comey.

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Does the President not have the authority to order HHR and the AG to conduct a review? Are you saying that they are completely independent and do whatever they want?

No, I'm saying that the only means the president has of forcing them to do what he wants is to fire them and appoint someone more likely to follow his agenda... which falls somewhere between 'potential abuse of power for the other party to complain about' and 'impeachable offense', depending on the circumstances.

While pressuring or replacing the HHS secretary would not be as big a deal as doing so to the AG it really doesn't matter as the AG would need to sign off on anything from HHS in reference to drug classification. Presidents messing with any sort of law enforcement official is a big no no... cf. Trump and Comey.

I'd suggest to you the reason he didn't ask for HHR to conduct a fair and honest review of cannabis for drug scheduling was because he knew what their findings would be and so he didn't want to rock the boat. Instead he kicked the can down the road. He left it up to congress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

"The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition."

In any case, notice the complete absence of the President from this decision making process. Ergo, no, Obama did not have "the power to do so".

Are you being serious or joking?

The president appoints the Attorney General. Obama didn't appoint Jeff Sessions, he appointed Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. If Obama cared about it, he would have appointed an AG that was good on that issue. Obama cared more about drone strikes, harassing the free press, and someone who would play ball when Clinton and the Israeli prime minster wanted sleaze bags like Marc Rich freed, so you got Holder.

Saying the president did not have the power to influence an issue, when the president chooses the person who makes the call, does not make any sense to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And with a Republican controlled congress, you risk starting a battle where they start drafting legislation to enshrine marijuana's classification. You can certainly disagree with the efficacy of Obama's long term strategy regarding marijuana, but during his tenure essentially leaving the states alone and allowing them to set their course worked at that time. It kept the fight out of national politics and allowed progress to be made. A country of 330 million people doesn't turn on a dime; the trend is people becoming more accepting of marijuana, but the harder you push, the more push back you're going to get.

I'm with you on decriminalization, but as a country, we aren't there yet. We're getting closer, but making it a central political fight doesn't allow the country's natural drift to take place, but instead causes the sides to entrench and duke it out.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with natural drifts is that the people who control the media have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Besides, even if there's a populist movement that grows despite a media blackout, it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore. If the donor class is making money off the war on drugs it doesn't seem likely that it'll end any time soon regardless of public opinion.

On paper waiting for public opinion to change does sound like the right thing to do, but in today's government, I'm not sure public opinion means anything.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:
If Obama cared about it, he would have appointed an AG that was good on that issue.

Obama did appoint AGs who were good on that issue. They allowed the states to move forward unimpeded by the federal government.

Guy Humual wrote:
On paper waiting for public opinion to change does sound like the right thing to do, but in today's government, I'm not sure public opinion means anything.

I suspect that marriage equality advocates would disagree. Also gays in the military advocates. Transgender advocates. Interracial marriage advocates. African American civil rights advocates. Women's suffrage advocates...

Let's just call it pretty much everyone.

Public opinion matters in a democracy.

The Obama administration allowed states to go ahead with 'pseudo legalization'... which allowed many more people to see and hear more positive stories about the drug. That has resulted in 88% supporting medical marijuana.

Sessions, like the entire Trump administration, is desperately trying to turn back the clock on issues (pot, coal, LGBT rights, global warming, racism, religious bigotry, fraudulent forensic testimony, reality in general, et cetera) which have already tipped. He will not succeed. Too many people know better now. 63% of republicans say that the federal government should leave this issue to the states... independents and democrats do so at even higher levels. That's a drastic change from views before the Obama administration.


Guy Humual wrote:
The problem with natural drifts is that the people who control the media have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Besides, even if there's a populist movement that grows despite a media blackout, it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore.

Is there much of any sort of media campaign against MJ legalization? As a US citizen I don't really see one. Compared to Meth or Heroine, MJ use is more often used associated with comic relief than anything else in popular media. The media seems to be doing a pretty good job of normalizing it as far as I can tell.

There is a pretty good history of public opinion shifting and leading to changes. Hell...look at Healthcare today vs 20 years ago. It used to be a topic that wasn't considered a basic right and largely left to the free market. Now a majority of Americans, including folks on both sides of the aisle, approve of government involvement.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Obama did appoint AGs who were good on that issue. They allowed the states to move forward unimpeded by the federal government.

You and I must have different definitions of "unimpeded". I would also not describe it as being "good on that issue", especially seeing how little Sessions had to do to get the Drug Warz fired up again.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore

It's not as though it ever did.

the founding fathers stiffed soldiers on payment, then when those same soldiers defaulted on their mortgages, congress had the temerity to tell them to quit slacking and pay their debts.

Slavery is not only horrific in it's own right, but as an economic system concentrates the wealth at the top and devalues farmers and other workers. It privatizes profit, but the economic costs of maintaining the system were public: law enforcement, native american extripation, and our foreign policy were driven by the 1% reaping the benefits of the system.

The federal government used* to enforce the factory system by shooting protesting union workers. Because the factories made money.

the point is that our government has always done this. This is not a blip on the radar, a fluke, or an anomoly, its the system working as designed. If you want that government to change you can't look to the past, you need to make something new and revolutionary out of it.

* go for it comrade


I dunno. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump made pot legal. After all, proles high on pot certainly won't vote against him.


Guy Humual wrote:

The problem with natural drifts is that the people who control the media have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Besides, even if there's a populist movement that grows despite a media blackout, it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore. If the donor class is making money off the war on drugs it doesn't seem likely that it'll end any time soon regardless of public opinion.

On paper waiting for public opinion to change does sound like the right thing to do, but in today's government, I'm not sure public opinion means anything.

Public opinion does matter. It matters routinely.

The problem is that the public in a given district only cares strongly about 3-4 issues, but at the federal level there are 20,000 issues. That means a congressperson only needs to keep 3-4 promises, and then vote with corporations on the other 19,996-19,997 issues.

Public opinion on marijuana has changed dramatically, but most people don't care very much about the issue. A very, very small minority sees it as their primary issue, but we're talking about less than 1% of voters. They've just happened to get it on a ballot in a couple states, where the rest of the voters don't have to do any work other than check a box.

Part of the problem you need to realize is that there are a huge number of people in this country who disagree with your opinions. We can't just enforce our will on them, they have to be persuaded to agree. This country has become deeply conservative on a lot of issues and that's something that just has to be recognized. As much as I want it to be socialist, the country just isn't and doesn't want to be.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:

This country has become deeply conservative on a lot of issues and that's something that just has to be recognized.

Such as?

Polls consistently show conservative views in the minority on most issues.

IMO the problem is that while a majority of the population holds progressive views, they are geographically concentrated around urban areas. This gives the more dispersed conservative minority greater political power than their numbers would indicate.


I'm kinda embarrassed I didn't know this before, but, apparently, "Charlie on the MTA" was written as a campaign jingle for a 1949 Progressive Party (commie symps and dupes who split with the Dems after WWII) Boston mayoral race.

Walter O’Brien: The Man Who Never Returned


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I dunno. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump made pot legal. After all, proles high on pot certainly won't vote against him.

It might not surprise you, but he's kind of doing the opposite right now. This whole subthread started with Sessions cracking down on minor drug sentencing.

Let's not give Trump preemptive credit for things he's shown no sign of doing.


MMCJawa wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
The problem with natural drifts is that the people who control the media have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Besides, even if there's a populist movement that grows despite a media blackout, it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore.

Is there much of any sort of media campaign against MJ legalization? As a US citizen I don't really see one. Compared to Meth or Heroine, MJ use is more often used associated with comic relief than anything else in popular media. The media seems to be doing a pretty good job of normalizing it as far as I can tell.

There is a pretty good history of public opinion shifting and leading to changes. Hell...look at Healthcare today vs 20 years ago. It used to be a topic that wasn't considered a basic right and largely left to the free market. Now a majority of Americans, including folks on both sides of the aisle, approve of government involvement.

This is important. For all the problems with Obamacare, it really has changed the discussion from "should the government do this" to "how should the government do this". That's critical and it's a debate that's much easier for Democrats to win.

Compare the debate when the ACA was passed with the talk around this year's attempts at repeal: "government takeover of healthcare"


CBDunkerson wrote:
IMO the problem is that while a majority of the population holds progressive views, they are geographically concentrated around urban areas. This gives the more dispersed conservative minority greater political power than their numbers would indicate.

A map that illustrates your point

Voter distribution 2016

Sovereign Court

MMCJawa wrote:
Is there much of any sort of media campaign against MJ legalization? As a US citizen I don't really see one. Compared to Meth or Heroine, MJ use is more often used associated with comic relief than anything else in popular media. The media seems to be doing a pretty good job of normalizing it as far as I can tell.

I don't watch American TV so I couldn't tell you, but MJ has been a staple of comedy for a long time now. Cheech and Chong for example. Perhaps there has been actual positive coverage of medical marijuana in the news? What often happens though is they have media black outs of things they don't want people thinking about. There's been plenty of protests that the news hasn't even covered.

MMCJawa wrote:
There is a pretty good history of public opinion shifting and leading to changes. Hell...look at Healthcare today vs 20 years ago. It used to be a topic that wasn't considered a basic right and largely left to the free market. Now a majority of Americans, including folks on both sides of the aisle, approve of government involvement.

The key difference is that not only is public opinion shifting but we're seeing actual protests. People are awake and politically active on these issues, and more importantly: it's getting media coverage. However, the GOP may still go through with their gutting of the ACA, and if the corporate democrats win the up coming internal battle for the DNC, you likely won't see the democrats restoring the ACA to what it was.


Guy Humual wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Is there much of any sort of media campaign against MJ legalization? As a US citizen I don't really see one. Compared to Meth or Heroine, MJ use is more often used associated with comic relief than anything else in popular media. The media seems to be doing a pretty good job of normalizing it as far as I can tell.

I don't watch American TV so I couldn't tell you, but MJ has been a staple of comedy for a long time now. Cheech and Chong for example. Perhaps there has been actual positive coverage of medical marijuana in the news? What often happens though is they have media black outs of things they don't want people thinking about. There's been plenty of protests that the news hasn't even covered.

MMCJawa wrote:
There is a pretty good history of public opinion shifting and leading to changes. Hell...look at Healthcare today vs 20 years ago. It used to be a topic that wasn't considered a basic right and largely left to the free market. Now a majority of Americans, including folks on both sides of the aisle, approve of government involvement.
The key difference is that not only is public opinion shifting but we're seeing actual protests. People are awake and politically active on these issues, and more importantly: it's getting media coverage. However, the GOP may still go through with their gutting of the ACA, and if the corporate democrats win the up coming internal battle for the DNC, you likely won't see the democrats restoring the ACA to what it was.

Wait, I thought the ACA was the horrible corporate Dem version?

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
The problem with natural drifts is that the people who control the media have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Besides, even if there's a populist movement that grows despite a media blackout, it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore.

Is there much of any sort of media campaign against MJ legalization? As a US citizen I don't really see one. Compared to Meth or Heroine, MJ use is more often used associated with comic relief than anything else in popular media. The media seems to be doing a pretty good job of normalizing it as far as I can tell.

There is a pretty good history of public opinion shifting and leading to changes. Hell...look at Healthcare today vs 20 years ago. It used to be a topic that wasn't considered a basic right and largely left to the free market. Now a majority of Americans, including folks on both sides of the aisle, approve of government involvement.

This is important. For all the problems with Obamacare, it really has changed the discussion from "should the government do this" to "how should the government do this". That's critical and it's a debate that's much easier for Democrats to win.

Compare the debate when the ACA was passed with the talk around this year's attempts at repeal: "government takeover of healthcare"

I think there's more at play here, Republicans voted to repeal "Obamacare" many many times, people seemed happy to vote some of those folks into office, but the key difference is now some of these people have experienced some of the benefits of the ACA, they realize that the ACA and "Obamacare" are the same thing, and they now realize what the republicans are trying to take from them. The problem is political literacy and engagement is pretty low in the US. Heck the majority of people on this site avoid political topics. However these are suddenly life or death matters for a lot of Americans and so they're very much involved.

Now as to my original point, public opinion might still not ultimately matter here, republicans might follow through on their donor's wishes, and if we don't have a take over of the democratic party, the democrats might not do anything, save maybe restoring the ACA to what it was rather than doing anything more progressive like adding a public option to complete with private insurance. Most people in America prefer single payer, the president prefers single payer, but it's not what you're getting because that would be a massive hit to the insurance industry and they massive donors to both parties.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Wait, I thought the ACA was the horrible corporate Dem version?

It is, better then what you had, but far worse than what we have in Canada for example.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'm kinda embarrassed I didn't know this before, but, apparently, "Charlie on the MTA" was written as a campaign jingle for a 1949 Progressive Party (commie symps and dupes who split with the Dems after WWII) Boston mayoral race.

Walter O’Brien: The Man Who Never Returned

Neat, I knew it was a political song, but I had no idea it was about a progressive. Shouldn't be that surprising though, folk singers aren't really known for their right wing leanings traditionally.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
The problem with natural drifts is that the people who control the media have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Besides, even if there's a populist movement that grows despite a media blackout, it's not as if congress actually does the will of the people anymore.

Is there much of any sort of media campaign against MJ legalization? As a US citizen I don't really see one. Compared to Meth or Heroine, MJ use is more often used associated with comic relief than anything else in popular media. The media seems to be doing a pretty good job of normalizing it as far as I can tell.

There is a pretty good history of public opinion shifting and leading to changes. Hell...look at Healthcare today vs 20 years ago. It used to be a topic that wasn't considered a basic right and largely left to the free market. Now a majority of Americans, including folks on both sides of the aisle, approve of government involvement.

This is important. For all the problems with Obamacare, it really has changed the discussion from "should the government do this" to "how should the government do this". That's critical and it's a debate that's much easier for Democrats to win.

Compare the debate when the ACA was passed with the talk around this year's attempts at repeal: "government takeover of healthcare"

I think there's more at play here, Republicans voted to repeal "Obamacare" many many times, people seemed happy to vote some of those folks into office, but the key difference is now some of these people have experienced some of the benefits of the ACA, they realize that the ACA and "Obamacare" are the same thing, and they now realize what the republicans are trying to take from them. The problem is political literacy and engagement is pretty low in the US. Heck the majority of people on this site avoid political topics. However these are suddenly life or death matters for a lot of Americans and so they're very much involved.

Now as to my original point, public opinion might still not ultimately matter here, republicans might follow through on their donor's wishes, and if we don't have a take over of the democratic party, the democrats might not do anything, save maybe restoring the ACA to what it was rather than doing anything more progressive like adding a public option to complete with private insurance. Most people in America prefer single payer, the president prefers single payer, but it's not what you're getting because that would be a massive hit to the insurance industry and they massive donors to both parties.

Well yeah, it's certainly true that Republicans might manage to repeal it, but my point was that the debate is no longer, except for the most rightward elements, whether government should be involved. That was the big thing back int 2009/10. We were fighting over the very concept. Now that we've had it, imperfect as the ACA was, people are protesting and fighting losing it. To some extent Republicans fooled people into thinking they could just repeal the parts people weren't fond of, but now they're seeing what repeal would actually mean.

We don't have to "take over" the Democratic Party to at least get back to the ACA as it was. That's explicit policy. Single payer will be harder, but that's not just "donor opposition", that's still fighting decades of propaganda on taxes and big government. Is the polling really in favor of single payer? Probably depends on how they ask the question.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:


Public opinion on marijuana has changed dramatically, but most people don't care very much about the issue. A very, very small minority sees it as their primary issue, but we're talking about less than 1% of voters. They've just happened to get it on a ballot in a couple states, where the rest of the voters don't have to do any work other than check a box.

Well I don't disagree with the idea that most Americans don't care, but I'm sure the people that feel it's a primary issue is probably higher, especially in areas were pot possession is used to put people in prison. This is my main concern BTW, I think it is probably a wonder drug that's a superior pain reliever, but drug possession has put a large number of people in prison, and a lot of those people are minorities. I wouldn't say that it's one of my primary issues in the US though, you got much bigger problems, I'd say campaign reform is the number one issue in the US at the moment and the root of all evil.

Irontruth wrote:
Part of the problem you need to realize is that there are a huge number of people in this country who disagree with your opinions. We can't just enforce our will on them, they have to be persuaded to agree. This country has become deeply conservative on a lot of issues and that's something that just has to be recognized. As much as I want it to be socialist, the country just isn't and doesn't want to be.

Well again, not going to disagree, but the media is a big influence changing public opinion. Most of the TV stations, radio stations, and news papers are controlled by a few companies. They're both the beneficiaries of campaign donations, but with the labyrinth of subsidiaries, parent companies, and holding companies, they might also be the source of a lot of these campaign donations as well. If they're not interested in shifting public opinion it's going to be a lot harder to change people's perspectives then it was 20 years ago.

The other way people's perspectives change is through personal experience, and I suspect that's why the republican changes to the ACA is getting so much push back at the moment, people have experienced the changes under the ACA and are, for the most part, happy with them. The so called "gay marriage" thing probably would never have gotten through congress and thus could only go through the courts, but now that it's a thing most Americans probably don't care one way or another. I think maybe if you force some of these issues when you're in power most people wouldn't care one way or another but in turn you'd have a far healthier society.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When Bill Clinton implemented the 'don't ask / don't tell' policy to allow homosexuals to legally serve in the US military conservatives predicted the end of the world. Instead, people were able to directly observe that it was really no big deal... paving the way for Obama to end all restrictions and allow them to serve openly.

When, during the Bush II administration, individual states legalized 'domestic unions' and homosexual marriage conservatives predicted the end of the world. Instead, people were able to directly observe that it was really no big deal... paving the way for the Supreme Court to make it legal nationwide during the Obama administration.

Likewise, the Obama admin's mostly hands off approach to marijuana allowed many states to legalize it to varying degrees. People have now seen that it is no big deal. We will probably have to wait for the next Democrat president/congress and possibly a better Supreme Court mix, but this WILL inevitably lead to repeal of many restrictions.

Yes, there is a significant percentage of the US population which is so isolated that they seldom/never encounter these things and/or who are capable of denying the evidence of their own senses... but ultimately they are a minority and they inevitably lose when the disinterested majority can see for themselves that all the scare tactics are lies.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Is the polling really in favor of single payer? Probably depends on how they ask the question.

Most Americans are pretty uneducated on the issues, at least before Trump got into office, but now that it's literally a life or death issue people are learning pretty quickly about the ACA, medicare, and single payer. I think most polls over the years have had the majority of Americans in favor of government ensuring health care, there was a dip in that shortly after "Obamacare" was introduced, as suddenly everyone was mandated to get insurance, but now that people are seeing the benefits people's approval has only gone up. Now that Trump is in office it's more popular now then it's been in a decade. The only holdouts you see are the republicans, who are still polling below 50% in favor, but in some of the polls I see, those that strongly appose are less then those that are in favor and strongly in favor, so I think even some republicans are softening no the issue.

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:


Yes, there is a significant percentage of the US population which is so isolated that they seldom/never encounter these things and/or who are capable of denying the evidence of their own senses... but ultimately they are a minority and they inevitably lose when the disinterested majority can see for themselves that all the scare tactics are lies.

I don't know CBDunkerson, I think most Americans know someone who's been affected by the War on Drugs, either directly or indirectly. Opioid addiction is hitting certain rural states pretty hard. It's been the scourge of minority groups for years but now, drug conviction, overdoses, gang warfare, etc, but now rural white America is getting devastated. One of the reasons I support legalizing, at the very least, medical marijuana is that it's a non addictive pain killer. I think rescheduling the drug at the federal level is the better approach. States can still have a say with how people can access the drug of course, but waiting for all 50 states to come to a logical conclusion might simply result in red states never adopting medical marijuana, and thus states that do adopt are forever at risk whenever the government decides to switch.


Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Public opinion on marijuana has changed dramatically, but most people don't care very much about the issue. A very, very small minority sees it as their primary issue, but we're talking about less than 1% of voters. They've just happened to get it on a ballot in a couple states, where the rest of the voters don't have to do any work other than check a box.
Well I don't disagree with the idea that most Americans don't care, but I'm sure the people that feel it's a primary issue is probably higher, especially in areas were pot possession is used to put people in prison.

This would be the opposite of true. States where it's completely illegal are the places where it's used to put people in prison the most and those are states that have failed to push any sort of decriminalization. They're literally the states where people care the least about decriminalizing pot.

A state like California, Washington or Colorado, where people care about this, are states that no longer throw people in jail for possession.


Society advances one funeral at a time

Older people are having fewer funerals.

They had fewer kids. So we need to wait for more funerals for society to change.

Trump is the fox news generation president. Fox news has managed to do to our parents what our parents always said video games would do to us. I don't know what republicans are going to look like in a generation, should be interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump was pretty much inevitable. When a significant percentage of the electorate is conditioned to be anti-fact, it going to be hijacked. Believing differently is naive, at best.

You know, naive like believing the "you best hope I don't have tapes of my conversations was a threat to Comey, and not to Republican Congressmen.


Guy Humual wrote:
I don't know CBDunkerson, I think most Americans know someone who's been affected by the War on Drugs, either directly or indirectly. Opioid addiction is hitting certain rural states pretty hard. It's been the scourge of minority groups for years but now, drug conviction, overdoses, gang warfare, etc, but now rural white America is getting devastated. One of the reasons I support legalizing, at the very least, medical marijuana is that it's a non addictive pain killer. I think rescheduling the drug at the federal level is the better approach. States can still have a say with how people can access the drug of course, but waiting for all 50 states to come to a logical conclusion might simply result in red states never adopting medical marijuana, and thus states that do adopt are forever at risk whenever the government decides to switch.

I think vast swathes of the country probably don't feel they have been all that affected, or have been affected in such a way that they support the current drug laws. The war on drugs most impacts minority groups, which are for the most part not a concern of the Republican party. The main reason the Opioid crisis is a crisis is because that is actually hurting rural white voters in Republican leaning areas.

I don't know, I don't really mean this as any sort of personal offense, but I just don't get from your replies that you have a general sense of what the USA is like. There are vast cultural difference across the country as well as wide swath of opinions on what different groups all consider important as far as how they vote and such. There's a lot of assumptions you make regarding both processes that govern this country and how US citizens think that I don't think in general are valid.


I've spent some time here and there in Iowa, and various places surrounding the state, and I can tell you that Drug issues are HUGE there! I can't stress enough how much Meth affects communities there.

On the other end of the spectrum, I live near NYC, and have also seen firsthand what "stop N' frisk", "Broken' Windows Policin'", combined with strict drug laws does to most of the city. People often didn't talk about it, but even in the suburbs, people are OD'ing. Drugs (legal and illegal) effect everyone. A huge number of people take a variety of prescription drugs, (with and without a prescription). Oh, and people everywhere smoke weed.

The drug laws are an ugly relic of the last Century. A strong majority would like to see major changes in our drug laws, especially expanded drug treatment and less punitive marijuana laws.

Here is the thing, the government didn't have to fully legalize it, they just had to change it from schedule I to schedule II. Alongside such lovely drugs as methamphetamine, and fentanyl. That would have made a huge, lasting difference.

I well remember a time when the country was ready to "Just say NO!" and vote Reagan, but the country that voted for Obama, was ready to embrace weed and a smarter drug policy. Even softies like Pat Robertson have called for decriminalization. And that was like five years ago.

The democrats just kind of phoned it in on drug policy. Yeah, it could have been worse, but it could have been better...

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Public opinion on marijuana has changed dramatically, but most people don't care very much about the issue. A very, very small minority sees it as their primary issue, but we're talking about less than 1% of voters. They've just happened to get it on a ballot in a couple states, where the rest of the voters don't have to do any work other than check a box.
Well I don't disagree with the idea that most Americans don't care, but I'm sure the people that feel it's a primary issue is probably higher, especially in areas were pot possession is used to put people in prison.
This would be the opposite of true. States where it's completely illegal are the places where it's used to put people in prison the most and those are states that have failed to push any sort of decriminalization. They're literally the states where people care the least about decriminalizing pot.

So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it? They like having the police in their neighborhoods busting teens for simple possession? See that is very counter to what I've heard and my understanding of human nature. I'm sure the gerrymandered state houses don't care much, but that doesn't mean there aren't wide swaths of the states that don't feel this is a major concern if not a primary issue.


Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it?

In the country, it is hard as hell to catch someone with illegal drugs. The number of cops and resources per square mile just make that incredibly difficult, so the posession charges don't have as big of an impact.

In the suburbs Rich white people (and the children of which white people) rarely get the brunt of that possession charge. They just pack the kid off to a rehabilitation center that the judge is more than happy to sign off on because it doesn't cost the state money that way. So rich white people really don't care about the law

Or they just go to the doctor and get something prescribed, cheaper, and made by a professional chemical lab instead of a guy who dropped out of highschool chemistry and thinks a ventilation hood is one of those mask things with optimus prime on it.

So the possession charge being on the books is not a matter that concerns a lot of voters, the system is already having a minimal impact on them.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I don't know CBDunkerson, I think most Americans know someone who's been affected by the War on Drugs, either directly or indirectly. Opioid addiction is hitting certain rural states pretty hard. It's been the scourge of minority groups for years but now, drug conviction, overdoses, gang warfare, etc, but now rural white America is getting devastated. One of the reasons I support legalizing, at the very least, medical marijuana is that it's a non addictive pain killer. I think rescheduling the drug at the federal level is the better approach. States can still have a say with how people can access the drug of course, but waiting for all 50 states to come to a logical conclusion might simply result in red states never adopting medical marijuana, and thus states that do adopt are forever at risk whenever the government decides to switch.

I think vast swathes of the country probably don't feel they have been all that affected, or have been affected in such a way that they support the current drug laws. The war on drugs most impacts minority groups, which are for the most part not a concern of the Republican party. The main reason the Opioid crisis is a crisis is because that is actually hurting rural white voters in Republican leaning areas.

I don't know, I don't really mean this as any sort of personal offense, but I just don't get from your replies that you have a general sense of what the USA is like. There are vast cultural difference across the country as well as wide swath of opinions on what different groups all consider important as far as how they vote and such. There's a lot of assumptions you make regarding both processes that govern this country and how US citizens think that I don't think in general are valid.

Well, This poll,says 93% support allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it, and 71% oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana (questions 64 and 65), so from that I assume there's support for medical marijuana. Could be that the poll is wrong?


Guy Humual wrote:
Well, This poll,says 93% support allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it, and 71% oppose the...

Now that republicans are in office and "Federal government" is no longer synonymous with "EVIL!" it may have changed.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it?

In the country, it is hard as hell to catch someone with illegal drugs. The number of cops and resources per square mile just make that incredibly difficult, so the posession charges don't have as big of an impact.

In the suburbs Rich white people (and the children of which white people) rarely get the brunt of that possession charge. They just pack the kid off to a rehabilitation center that the judge is more than happy to sign off on because it doesn't cost the state money that way. So rich white people really don't care about the law

Or they just go to the doctor and get something prescribed, cheaper, and made by a professional chemical lab instead of a guy who dropped out of highschool chemistry and thinks a ventilation hood is one of those mask things with optimus prime on it.

So the possession charge being on the books is not a matter that concerns a lot of voters, the system is already having a minimal impact on them.

but something like half of the prisoners in the US federal system are in on drug related charges. Besides, I was talking about poor and/or minority neighborhoods.


Fergie wrote:

I've spent some time here and there in Iowa, and various places surrounding the state, and I can tell you that Drug issues are HUGE there! I can't stress enough how much Meth affects communities there.

On the other end of the spectrum, I live near NYC, and have also seen firsthand what "stop N' frisk", "Broken' Windows Policin'", combined with strict drug laws does to most of the city. People often didn't talk about it, but even in the suburbs, people are OD'ing. Drugs (legal and illegal) effect everyone. A huge number of people take a variety of prescription drugs, (with and without a prescription). Oh, and people everywhere smoke weed.

The drug laws are an ugly relic of the last Century. A strong majority would like to see major changes in our drug laws, especially expanded drug treatment and less punitive marijuana laws.

Here is the thing, the government didn't have to fully legalize it, they just had to change it from schedule I to schedule II. Alongside such lovely drugs as methamphetamine, and fentanyl. That would have made a huge, lasting difference.

I well remember a time when the country was ready to "Just say NO!" and vote Reagan, but the country that voted for Obama, was ready to embrace weed and a smarter drug policy. Even softies like Pat Robertson have called for decriminalization. And that was like five years ago.

The democrats just kind of phoned it in on drug policy. Yeah, it could have been worse, but it could have been better...

Thing is there aren't "Drug issues" as a single policy with support for the same policies for the same groups. The groups looking for help with the meth and opioid crises generally aren't worried about pot and tend to be happy with strict policing of those urban thugs. The urban areas are more concerned about the actual policing than the drug laws and they know damn well that the drugs laws are only an excuse and while legalizing pot might help, it's not actually going to change the real problems. Legalizing pot would also do nothing for the meth & opioid epidemics.

Of course, as we now see (and should have clearly known from the start) Trump is awful on both - with sEssions pushing harsher drug penalties and Trump's budget slashing medical funding for the opioid problem.


Guy Humual wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it?

In the country, it is hard as hell to catch someone with illegal drugs. The number of cops and resources per square mile just make that incredibly difficult, so the posession charges don't have as big of an impact.

In the suburbs Rich white people (and the children of which white people) rarely get the brunt of that possession charge. They just pack the kid off to a rehabilitation center that the judge is more than happy to sign off on because it doesn't cost the state money that way. So rich white people really don't care about the law

Or they just go to the doctor and get something prescribed, cheaper, and made by a professional chemical lab instead of a guy who dropped out of highschool chemistry and thinks a ventilation hood is one of those mask things with optimus prime on it.

So the possession charge being on the books is not a matter that concerns a lot of voters, the system is already having a minimal impact on them.

but something like half of the prisoners in the US federal system are in on drug related charges. Besides, I was talking about poor and/or minority neighborhoods.

Yeah, but they can't vote. Felons.

And to a large extent, that would be more votes in areas Democrats already win.


Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it? They like having the police in their neighborhoods busting teens for simple possession? See that is very counter to what I've heard and my understanding of human nature. I'm sure the gerrymandered state houses don't care much, but that doesn't mean there aren't wide swaths of the states that don't feel this is a major concern if not a primary issue.

The people bearing the brunt of harsh drug laws largely belong to minority groups that Republicans don't care about, and who don't make up a significant fraction of the Republican voting base (and for vast swaths of the country probably not a significant fraction of democrat leaning voters, to be honest).


Guy Humual wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it?

In the country, it is hard as hell to catch someone with illegal drugs. The number of cops and resources per square mile just make that incredibly difficult, so the posession charges don't have as big of an impact.

In the suburbs Rich white people (and the children of which white people) rarely get the brunt of that possession charge. They just pack the kid off to a rehabilitation center that the judge is more than happy to sign off on because it doesn't cost the state money that way. So rich white people really don't care about the law

Or they just go to the doctor and get something prescribed, cheaper, and made by a professional chemical lab instead of a guy who dropped out of highschool chemistry and thinks a ventilation hood is one of those mask things with optimus prime on it.

So the possession charge being on the books is not a matter that concerns a lot of voters, the system is already having a minimal impact on them.

but something like half of the prisoners in the US federal system are in on drug related charges. Besides, I was talking about poor and/or minority neighborhoods.

Which are mostly distributed in democrat-controlled/leaning districts, and thus have no actual influence on Republican policies.

Sovereign Court

MMCJawa wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it? They like having the police in their neighborhoods busting teens for simple possession? See that is very counter to what I've heard and my understanding of human nature. I'm sure the gerrymandered state houses don't care much, but that doesn't mean there aren't wide swaths of the states that don't feel this is a major concern if not a primary issue.
The people bearing the brunt of harsh drug laws largely belong to minority groups that Republicans don't care about, and who don't make up a significant fraction of the Republican voting base (and for vast swaths of the country probably not a significant fraction of democrat leaning voters, to be honest).

I don't really care who the republicans care about to be honest. I'm more concerned about the majority of Americans as I think progressive and populist policies are things most Americans want.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, but they can't vote. Felons.

And to a large extent, that would be more votes in areas Democrats already win.

Ah, yes, I knew that, but I was thinking if that percentage of prisoners are in on drug charges, close to half, that would represent a much larger swath of the population. I mean their family and friends can't all be felons as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it? They like having the police in their neighborhoods busting teens for simple possession? See that is very counter to what I've heard and my understanding of human nature. I'm sure the gerrymandered state houses don't care much, but that doesn't mean there aren't wide swaths of the states that don't feel this is a major concern if not a primary issue.
The people bearing the brunt of harsh drug laws largely belong to minority groups that Republicans don't care about, and who don't make up a significant fraction of the Republican voting base (and for vast swaths of the country probably not a significant fraction of democrat leaning voters, to be honest).
I don't really care who the republicans care about to be honest. I'm more concerned about the majority of Americans as I think progressive and populist policies are things most Americans want.

Those majority of US Citizens only dwell in a small number of states (and often small areas of those states). You can't dismiss everyone else as irrelevant, when those other areas represent a majority of congressional districts and states.

3,651 to 3,700 of 4,260 << first < prev | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards