Biden Pardons All Federal Simple Marijuana Possession Offenses (arstechnica.com) 316
President Biden on Thursday announced that he is pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession and encouraged state governors to do the same for state offenses. He also directed federal officials to review how marijuana is classified under the Controlled Substances Act. From a report: "There are thousands of people who have prior federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result," Biden said in a statement. "My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions." The blazing announcement means that all prior charges, convictions, and not-yet-prosecuted offenses will be pardoned. The Justice Department will set up an administrative process for those affected to obtain a certificate of pardon. Senior administration officials estimated that over 6,500 people will get federal pardons and thousands more with convictions under code in the District of Columbia will be impacted. However, the officials noted that there are currently no people in federal prisons solely on simple marijuana possession convictions. The vast majority of simple marijuana possession convictions are state convictions, which will not be affected by the federal pardons. That's why Biden has called upon governors to extend the pardons to those charges.
I'll smoke to that (Score:2)
Now we need to figure out banking for the marijuana industry.
Re:I'll smoke to that (Score:5, Informative)
Once it's removed from schedule 1 there won't be any banking issues. The problem is credit card companies are scared to process payments because it's illegal at the federal level and the banks are just as scared.
Re: (Score:2)
There are credit card processing agencies that provide services for "high-risk" businesses. Naturally you'll have to pay them a bigger cut.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called BTC/Monero.
Re: (Score:2)
Pee-ew, keep your volatility to yourself.
A Lost Opportunity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yours isn't the only time zone. It's not even 4 yet here.
Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They try to make this a partisan issue. It isn't. Cannabis should never have been illegal. It is an herbal remedy with a long established history (thousands of years) of safe use. By the FDA's own guidelines it belongs on the herbal supplement shelf with no need to establish any sort of medical efficacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, without endorsing its supposed medical effects, it became a bugbear because it was associated with blacks, Latinos, and hippies. That's why we call it "marijuana" rather than by the names English speakers had been calling it all along, "cannabis" and "hemp".
John Erlichman, Nixon's domestic policy czar, discussing the political reasoning behind declaring the "War on Drugs", noted,
source [harpers.org]
In other words, all the billions of dollars spent on going after pot, all the millions of arrests and hundreds of thousands of people put into jail ... all that originated in a calculated abuse of law enforcement authority for political ends.
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, all the billions of dollars spent on going after pot, all the millions of arrests and hundreds of thousands of people put into jail ... all that originated in a calculated abuse of law enforcement authority for political ends.
Political ends with a massively racist slant to it.
Now, what's interesting is that the group that came up with these almost explicitly racist laws are the ones that really hate critical race theory, which (don't believe what a right winger tells you about something they hate), well, let's quote:
Well, in large part it's about how laws and societal structures can be set up either by accident or with malice to be racist even if there's no actual mention of race in the laws. We have well documented evidence of the racism (which you quoted), but people really really hate that being taught.
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, one party has passed multiple bills in the House legalizing Cannabis.
The other party kills those bills when they arrive at the Senate, thanks to either controlling the chamber or using the filibuster.
It is a partisan issue.
Re: (Score:3)
If Biden actually wanted the issue resolved rather than political posturing,
If you actually read TFS, not even TFA, you would get down to:
He told them to take a look. Hint. Hint. Hint. Sure he could have instructed the FDA to classify something a certain way, but personally, I think it's a pretty bad idea for a politician to be overruling what's meant to be a non partisan agency for political reason
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Informative)
After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA. The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C. 811(b).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:4, Informative)
What? you couldn't even bother to read the second sentence of the summary?
"He also directed federal officials to review how marijuana is classified under the Controlled Substances Act."
Re: (Score:3)
Please read aaaaaaalll the way to the second sentence of TFSummary.
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the Senate kills every single cannabis legalization bill that makes it out of the House of Representatives
The President does have the ability to affect the Scheduling that cannabis falls under (just like dick Nixon forced cannabis to be schedule 1 with heroin and LSD) and how the cases are prosecuted, so President Biden is doing what he can
All Americans could go vote and change the Senate to Democratic hands , which would allow for total legalization, but this is a move in the right direction
Re: (Score:2)
Is it still that way tho now that McConnell isnt the senate majority leader anymore? I know Chuck Schummer was all about legalization. Maybe this will get the ball rolling.
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:4, Informative)
A legalization bill can't be passed under reconciliation, so it can be filibustered.
Doesn't matter who is majority leader when it comes to legalization. Republicans either kill the bill because they control the chamber, or kill the bill because they filibuster.
Re: (Score:3)
Schummer is the Majority Leader. The Senate is 50/50, with Kamala Harris as the tiebreaker.
The problem is that while it only takes 51 votes to pass a bill, it takes 60 votes to end discussion and bring it to a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The Senate is currently composed of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 independents
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:5, Informative)
Please learn how our government works before trying to comment.
Those two independents caucus with the Democrats. Making the chamber effectively split 50-50, with the Vice President breaking ties.
That's why Democrats are currently in charge of the Senate, hold the majority leader position, as well as all committee chairs.
However, legislation to legalize pot can be filibustered, and that's what the Republicans have done every time the House passes a legalization bill and they don't control the chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
The 220-204 vote on the bill, which would decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana, fell mostly along party lines Friday.
(Emphasis mine.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fiber producers also had a say in it. Hemp is a thing you know with many useful properties but it would devestate the fiber industry for things like paper, ropes
Re: (Score:3)
No, it was made illegal for political reasons.
According to the people who made it illegal: [harpers.org]
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people....
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
In addition, the folks enforcing prohibition weren't about to give up their power when prohibition ended, so they leapt upon other substances. They just didn't criminalize them as much as Nixon did.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden cannot by himself legalize pot. He can unilaterally pardon those convicted under the law. It takes Congress to act or a really long decriminalization process through the FDA to change the law.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been kept illegal to date due to it being a revenue source, as well as power, for government.
Largely due to the CIA's interests in maintaining coercive political control over large parts of South America, but also for the massive state prison industry.
And if it's something you can't campaign on, either pro or con, then it's of little value to a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Once federally legalized, borders have to be opened. As such, CHina and Drug lords will DUMP on America. No thank you.
Keep it state level legal only.
Re:Just legalize cannabis! (Score:4, Informative)
absolutely no. Once federally legalized, borders have to be opened. As such, CHina and Drug lords will DUMP on America. No thank you. Keep it state level legal only.
That does not seem to have happened here in Canada. Most all of the scary stories turned out to be exactly that.
Cue the anguished wails... (Score:5, Insightful)
cop unions may want the cops to do real crime and (Score:2)
cop unions may want the cops to do real crime and not waste the time / paper work / jail space on small bit's of weed
Re: (Score:2)
from private prison investors, cop unions, and authoritarians.
AND pharmaceutical companies!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Federal prisons have been outsourcing their inmates to state and privately run penitentiaries for decades. Just because they're not in the federal pen doesn't mean they aren't serving time for a federal crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bill of rights does apply to states and local governments and that is a good example of why. That is not an example of a reason to expand federal lawmaking authority or powers to enforce laws. That is an example of why the Constitution binds those entities as well as the federal government and when you have overwhelming enough support it is trivial to make changes to the Constitution, it has happened in as little as three months historically but CAN happen in as little as three weeks.
Short of having tha
Re: (Score:3)
"...the President's pardon authority was delegated before all that and could only possibly be inclusive of crimes under the laws at the state level."
An hysterically stupid comment, one that will sadly be overlooked by virtually everyone. Just wanted you to know that not everyone failed to notice how stupid you are.
Still waiting for Canada to collapse into anarchy (Score:5, Informative)
In 2018, Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party government finally fulfilled a campaign promise and legalized marijuana in Canada. This long-overdue measure was accompanied by much weeping and gnashing of teeth from conservatives. There were dire predictions of moral degeneracy, imminent social collapse and carnage on the roads, thanks to a massive increase in marijuana use. The health care system, it was said, would crumble under a massive influx of victims physically and/or psychologically addicted to the pernicious weed. Canada's perch near the top of the annual list of "Best Places to Live" would soon be nothing but a sad memory.
So almost exactly four years later, how do things look? Well, we now have proof that the situation is exactly as predicted by those who advocated for decades to have marijuana legalized. For years and years, in spite of the best efforts of law enforcement and the hysterical ranting of Canada's political and religious right, everybody who wanted pot had been getting it. Legalization has had very little effect, except to clear the dockets of courts that had been forced to deal with hundreds of penny-ante charges brought by thirsty cops looking to pad their arrest statistics. Also, there are now lots of small marijuana shops providing OK jobs to average folks. Predictions that such places would become breeding grounds for crime and underage drug use have, unsurprisingly, proved false.
So there's your large-scale feasibility study, guys. We legalized it. Everything's fine. We're still acknowledged around the world as one of the best places to live. And we're right next door. So come on, America...loosen up, eh. Join(t) us!
Re:Still waiting for Canada to collapse into anarc (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing happened in US states where pot was legalized.
People didn't run out and *start* smoking marijuana because it was legal. The people who want to do that were *already* doing that, secure in the knowledge that marijuana law enforcement was lax and selective.
Re:Still waiting for Canada to collapse into anarc (Score:4, Insightful)
If that doesn't tell a story, nothing does. Individual US states, all of Canada, all of Portugal, the Netherlands...the song remains the same. Unless you're willing to turn your country into a bloody-handed dictatorship (and maybe not even then), anti-drug laws just don't work.
how much is simple possession? (Score:2)
Do the feds consider that personal or trafficking?
Constitutional Roles? (Score:4)
A branch of government intentionally neglects its role, and the conversation on /. is about partisan politics.
The executive branch enforces laws. Choosing to not enforce a law has the same effect as overturning a law, or legislation, the thing that belongs to the legislative branch.
Do not worry, the other team will do the same thing to a law that its base does not like.
smoke pot and drop acid (Score:5, Insightful)
> smoke pot and drop acid
Maybe if you tried these things you would understand them better. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least he didn't expect people to inject pot, cut him some slack, he's more educated than most of his peers.
Re: smoke pot and drop acid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: smoke pot and drop acid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: smoke pot and drop acid (Score:4, Insightful)
Being performatively evil to kids by forcibly separating from their parents then destroying the paperwork in order to orphan them isn't "protecting the border", you know, for example. Because, you see, that doesn't actually add any border security, it's just theatre.
The fact that you think Dems aren't doing anything, which by implication means you think the Republicans are, just shows you are blindly partisan. Lots of Republican businesses need cheap, undocumented labour. They're not going to protect the border either.
Now, who wants those people who are in anyway to be treated as humans with full protection under the law?
Re: smoke pot and drop acid (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think that securing the border (which is code, by the way, for keeping the brown people from the south out) is going to help with the problem of fentanyl in our heroin supply? That fentanyl is coming from China in small packages. Picking up on those packages as they cross the border is basically impossible, given the shear number of packages that come in from China everyday. Given that drugs like carfentanyl are more than 300 times as potent as heroin, small packages are all it takes. A kilo of fentanyl is like half a ton of heroin. How do block that? It's not like heroin itself, which needs to come in by the ton. I order shit from China all the time, and I've never had a package inspected. They couldn't possibly inspect enough packages to detect a significant fraction of the incoming fentanyl, even if they really, really wanted to. Republicans being in office isn't going to change that. The only thing that could would be to add significant tariffs to reduce the amount of incoming stuff from China. But that would be pretty harmful to our economy, so it definitely isn't happening, no matter who's in charge.
Realistically, the only way to deal with the problem of fentanyl contamination of our heroin supply is to create standards for heroin purity and potency. This, of course, would require legalization, which is the right answer. We could actually do without legalizing heroin, by legalizing narcotic replacement therapy, and making it freely available. Note that this doesn't mean methadone or Suboxone, although those two are fine alternatives. It means prescribing something like oxycodone or morphine to heroin addicts sufficient to keep them from going out and buying heroin. Neither the R's nor the D's are currently up for doing that though. The D's are a bit closer with wanting to legalize pot. Baby steps.
Re: smoke pot and drop acid (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually we are wondering why the fuck Brandon is spending time on issues like transgenderism, legalizing drug use and pandering to fringe groups. Go ahead and smoke pot and drop acid all you want. I am sure that will work out well for you in life.
It's so easy to tell from just a few simple words when someone is incredibly uneducated on a topic.
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you think this will make a difference if the FDA still has pot as a Schedule 1 drug. The fact that it shouldn't be is irrelevent.
From TFS (literally the second sentence of the first paragraph):
He also directed federal officials to review how marijuana is classified under the Controlled Substances Act.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the Attorney General does [house.gov], who I do believe qualifies as a "federal official".
Re: (Score:3)
Well, because it makes a difference to transgender people and their families.
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
>>Legalizing marijuana has been the ONE thing I've always thought democrats could have and would have wanted to do, ever since Obama, yet they never brought it up federally in any meaningful way to date.
Bullshit
When the Dems have held the House, they have brought up cannabis legalization bills, but they have been killed in the Senate by the republican majority there [seacoastonline.com]
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL. US economy was about to collapse into a depression, and you wanted them to debate a marijuana bill in those 3 months?
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
That window only was for 24 days. And they did have business they were trying to get through (healthcare).
On July 7th 2009, Al Franken was finally declared elected, but Ted Kennedy was incapacitated\gravely ill and unable to vote.
On August 26th Ted Kenney dies.
On September 25th, 2009, they achieved their super majority.
Between then and Scott Brown's special election win there were only 60 days in session or special sessions. During that time almost all of the time was devoted to ACA and overcoming the drawn-out procedural hurdles that were being thrown up by the GOP minority explicitly to ensure as little as possible made it through committee in this brief window.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Three months! They absolutely could have done ... not much.
a) Government moves slowly; three months isn't huge.
b) They had other priorities.
c) Several of those Democrats were assholes (think Manchin, but worse).
Unlike today's Rs, the current Democrats aren't quite as good at marching in lockstep, prioritizing power for power's sake.
And finally, this is a policy that has huge support in the US. Blaming the Democrats for failing to execute it in a three-month window over twelve years ago is a pretty good indi
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They had a supermajority in the senate
There were 48 democrats, 50 republicans, and 2 independents. Are you sure you want to call that a "supermajority"?
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they fearing the red wave more than they were previously?
No, all they did was cause more women to register as democrats.
https://www.axios.com/local/co... [axios.com]
https://www.yorkdispatch.com/s... [yorkdispatch.com]
https://www.wtsp.com/article/n... [wtsp.com]
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
NPR has more info in this story:
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/06... [npr.org]
"The order comes as five states, Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota, have legalization measures on their ballots for November. Nineteen states have legalized marijuana for recreational use and 38 states have legalized marijuana for medical use."
It would seem that the will of the people is what is driving marijuana legalization. Biden is doing his job and working for the people. Being President is not about being a dictator and doing whatever you want, maybe you do not always agree with the people but you do the right thing anyway because that is what it means to be Presidential. Grow up, not everything is a conspiracy (political or otherwise).
Re: (Score:2)
Biden is doing his job and working for the people. Being President is not about being a dictator and doing whatever you want, maybe you do not always agree with the people but you do the right thing anyway because that is what it means to be Presidential.
And it should be pointed out that Biden wouldn't be doing this if he was doing what he wanted. He's on record condemning weed many times, his own son is a cautionary tale to him, and he's of the generation that was so steeped in anti-drug propaganda, beginning way back in the early 1920s, that it's a wonder he actually agreed to sign this order at all.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Insightful)
"...it really says something about the current political state for the democrats that he (or his handlers) are having him now push for pot to be taken off the schedule I list of prohibited drugs."
Does it? How do you know? Perhaps his position is simply evolving. Perhaps Biden understands that doing things that are wildly popular is a universal good, not merely something done in desperation. Frankly it says nothing at all.
You know what says "something", you referencing "his handlers". Only takes a few sentences to spot a shameless partisan.
Re: (Score:3)
It's insanity that pot is at a higher schedule than fentanyl.
All part of a successful propaganda campaign. My belief is that Hearst was behind it because hemp was overtaking his newspaper empire.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Interesting)
After WW1 Congress passed laws to encourage farmers to grow hemp because the US ran low on rope during the war
An active hemp industry was a threat to Hearst's investments in forests and lumber industries in the NW
Hearst could have printed his papers on hemp paper, but he wanted to increase his profits by using lumber pulp, so he decided to create the new word 'marijuana' and demonize it along with the Mexicans and minority laborers who used it most
Greed and Racism seem to be at the heart of the right wing press, what say we rip it out?
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, as a grumpy old white guy, it was spelled 'marihuana'. Putting a 'J' in there just confused the country club crowd.
If you search the Controlled Substances Act, the 'h' spelling appears 60 times and the 'j' only 2, and those from a later amendment.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's insanity that pot is at a higher schedule than fentanyl.
Well, yes and no. Fentanyl has plenty of legitimate medical uses. I've prescribed and administered it myself on numerous occasions. That said, THC (the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) also has a lot of therapeutic uses. I once used Marinol to cure (yes, cure) a psychotic anorexic wreck of a 16 year old girl in the hospital. When I followed up on her eight hours later (half life, etc.) she was obviously high but I managed to fix her psychotrauma and anorexia right there. Start to end? Less than 18 hours. So I do believe in the claims of efficacy of these illegal "drugs of abuse" in clinical situations. THC should be schedule II (or, frankly, completely unregulated because it's no worse than alcohol).
Think of it this way: The drunk driver who just got out of a bar at 2AM is wreckless and winds up driving 100mph the wrong way on the expressway. The guy who is living in a haze of bong smoke or something is paranoid, driving 20mph in the right lane, and just wants a cheeseburger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither one of them has any reaction time to speak of, and neither one of them should be on the road AT ALL. It doesn't matter how slow or fast you are going if it takes a full minute to process anything let alone react properly. I would add, ditto for cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
HOWEVER, the fact is, that high ppl are far far less of a menace to society than a drunk.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither one of them has any reaction time to speak of, and neither one of them should be on the road AT ALL. It doesn't matter how slow or fast you are going if it takes a full minute to process anything let alone react properly. I would add, ditto for cell phones.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course the speed matters. It matters to other drivers or pedestrians who have to react to any unexpected actions the intoxicated individual makes, and it makes a massive difference to the amount of damage/trauma inflicted.
Re: (Score:3)
You cured anorexia with THC?
Do you have any idea what damage you did to the pharma industry that wanted to sell drugs to treat that?
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Pedantry: We hope he's wreckless. He might however be reckless. And I agree with everything you posted. Drunk people often hurt other people. Stoned people often sit in the corner and giggle.
Are you saying we should more strongly regulate alcohol?
If we were to regulate substances according to their relative harm to self and others, then we would regulate alcohol more strictly than cannabis.
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believed that until late 2016. Now I think Democrats are fucking hypocrites of the second highest order.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
Biden campaigned heavily on legalization of marujana. He would be doing this even if his party were ahead in the polls. This isn't vote buying, it's keeping campaign promises.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
Hereâ(TM)s his explicit campaign ad: https://youtu.be/V7nQiUl6Iqw [youtu.be]
âoeWe should decriminalize marijuana,â Biden said during a town hall event in October 2020.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Interesting)
>>Pretty much everything shows a massive red wave is coming November
No, it does not [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:3)
But yes, sadly, the gun fetishists have won for the forseeable future. And we'll just have to keep paying the price in regular senseless mass murder, again, and again, and again, and again.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the Republican solutions to those things?
Considering all were outside of government control, there's nothing that they can do. Their goal of taking control of Congress isn't to provide solutions, but to say "no" to any attempts to fix anything. Then point and say "see, government is a failure", while insuring it's so.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the Republican solutions to those things?
You used the words "Republican" and "solutions" in the same sentence -- funny.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Insightful)
>>The democrats have had complete control over the White House and Congress for nearly two years. Things they haven't fixed:
WTF
I would you to read up on the US Senate, which is held by Republicans and has worked at stopping all Dem legislation since before Obama was in office
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
"Regards,
A disappointed Biden voter."
LOL, probably not even a US citizen.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:4, Informative)
US domestic oil (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm getting mixed messages about this US domestic oil production thing. On one side, you're claiming that Biden killed off domestic production on day one of his term. On the other side, I see articles like this:
https://biologicaldiversity.or... [biologicaldiversity.org]
Which claims that Biden sold more oil/gas leases in his first year than what Trump did over the same period. And granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that domestic output will increase, but it does put the onus on the oil industry rather than the Biden administration.
I'm generally leaning towards what the article says, because it seems to be based on data rather than feelings. Not unless someone wants to clarify the situation.
Re:Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
Polling is showing they aren't working.
Analysts claimed that Dobbs would energize Democrat-leaning voters, but there's no evidence that happened.
Joe Biden's approval rating is at the same level as Ronald Reagan's in the run-up to the Republican president's first midterm election. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-b... [newsweek.com]
Also see my other comment about women registering to vote in droves.
Re: (Score:3)
All that happened is that voters have regained control of their right to ban murder, and as it turns out, most voters are against murdering babies. Weird, huh?
You seem poorly informed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/2... [npr.org]
Are you ever going to be shocked when every single state eventually has an initiative to allow abortion on the ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ESL is really improving, comrade. Too bad your message, and knowledge of current events, isn't.
Re: Clutch those pearls! (Score:5, Informative)
Biden can't change the law. Only its enforcement. He has literally done everything in his power to fight prohibition.
Re: (Score:3)
"Though a vast majority of pot heads probably already voted blue"
I'm thinking of that song, "...but then I got high."
I'm all for legalization and vote D 100% now, but pinning your hopes on potheads getting up and doing something...
Re: (Score:3)
"Most Dems are still liberals at heart, so implementing such a conservative idea probably rubbed them the wrong way initially. "
It's hard to imagine a sentence more stacked with stupidity.
"Dems" are a diverse group, not all "liberals at heart", and why is there a "still" in that sentence? As if something changed to make them not "liberal". And since when is legalization a "conservative idea". And rubbed them the wrong way "initially"? Seriously, an idiotic take. SuperKendall, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
As though a troll like you speaks for "the millions" or is in any way "normal". "Normal people" know these are not "fringe issues", you just daydream that they are in your mastubatory fantasies of Trump reelection.