this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
855 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
5111 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call being angry at a prosecutor putting innocent people into prison blind hate exactly. Certainly I wouldn't accept the logic that the constituency wanted to put innocent people in prison and that's why she did it, even if I believe that I would still find that morally repugnant.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I more mean that there are a lot of new accounts coming in and plastering this hate all over the place, and their reasoning is always “once a hater always a hater.” They aren’t here genuinely, or they are extremely ignorant of how humans work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I know there's been a big too-do about lemmy and it's modding tools (or lack there of) but I worry that this is a major concern for the platforms long term viability. With reddit, we could restrict posting from accounts with less than whatever karma, I don't know if that exists with lemmy communities.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry I don't take your meaning. In response to a comment about people disliking Kamala Harris for her record as a prosecutor, especially when she knowingly withheld evidence and secured the imprisonment of innocent suspects, you just decided to talk about how hate is bad in general? Seems odd. Don't know why you make the comment in that exact spot if it is nothing to do at all with the topic. Kind of confusing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’m saying that the intentional burying of head when it comes to her slow shift to supporting it being rescheduled, is hating for the sake of hate.

She did her job, and yeah her view was shit at the time. But she did what we all say we want people to do, and changed her tune. But somehow we still hate her?

You can hate past actions, but she either saw the light, or saw that her views were shit and is acting against her own views in support of the will of the people. A “yeah but” thrown on top is just trying to divide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry what? Where are you getting that she's changed her tune? She isn't up there talking about judicial reform or changing the way prosecutors work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She moved from “I’m prosecuting these petty drug crimes” to “I believe we should reschedule this substance.”

How is that not changing her tune?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The problem people had with her wasn't merely that she was Prosecuting drug crimes. Did I not make that clear with the whole putting innocent people in prison knowingly thing?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Innocent in popular opinion is different than innocent by law. People did things they knew they could go to jail for, even if the majority of the country was of the opinion that it should be legal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

No I mean innocent by law. Are you being purposely obtuse here? I'm not talking about drugs in the fucking least.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Not the person you're arguing with. Perhaps they aren't aware of the specific things you're taking issue with. So rather than being belligerent, explain what your angle is. What "things" specifically are you talking about. How did Harris throw innocents in jail? Because most people have an issue with her throwing people in jail over possessing small amounts of weed. Obviously you're concerned with something else. So what is it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Can you share a source? Nothing I’ve seen has suggested this is the case, and the comment this thread started on was about her pursuing drug convictions for posessing weed, which is something that is against federal and at the time many states laws.

Edit: Guess not. Kinda telling when an account makes random insane claims then poofs off when asked for a source. Almost like they aren’t here genuinely.