this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
51 points (96.4% liked)

Pleasant Politics

184 readers
215 users here now

Politics without the jerks.

This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read [email protected] for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.

Rules

Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.

All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.

No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Vice President Kamala Harris pledged Monday to federally legalize cannabis, ensuring that "safe cultivation, distribution and possession of recreational marijuana is the law of the land."

Good stuff.

Harris' promise is part of a package of initiatives aimed at energizing Black male voters ahead of the November election.

What the shit?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The reason it needs to be prescribed is due to its status as a schedule 1 drug, which was done as a tactic to target blacks and anti-war activists and 'legally' be able to imprison them.

At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? 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.”

The biggest incentive to not change that ruling since then, was private prison lobbiests, who financially benefit tremendously from having as many prisoners (effectively slave labor) as possible.

Alcohol was not made a scheduled drug because:

  1. It generated lots of taxes
  2. everybody drinks, including the people making the laws, and that'd be an awko-taco moment for a politician if discovered drinking after putting a whole bunch of people in prison for it. It was would've been much less useful as a political tool.
  3. The Prohibition wasn't terribly popular, and a 'Prohibition round 2' wasn't terribly appealing.
[–] [email protected] -3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not a fan of alcohol either, which is also why I commented on it. I'm even considering whether I should lay off of caffeine because of its effects as a stimulant as I grow older as a longterm user of it.

The problem I have with your logic is that it delves into the line of conspiracy. Sure, the private prison system is abusive, but if it were as bad as you say they would be arresting people from jaywalking. It's also generally illegalized outside of the US except for a few specific tourism hotspots, which even I would agree are not a risk factor.

Government are very aware of the effects of drugs and was even weaponized during the Opium Wars. They do generally have some interest in a stable society. Legalized marijuana may be viable, but my impression of it is that it's not without risks and it has certainly be politicized more than it should when what it really needs is an objective perspective that is difficult to attain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The problem I have with your logic is that it delves into the line of conspiracy.

Private prisons alone are a multi-billion a year industry, and as with any corporate community with vested interests, they lobby congress to sway them to their interests. If you consider that to be going too far into conspiracy, then I can only offer that this phenomena of a corporate plutocracy has been well studied by respected universities, and compiled into easily digestible books, examples such as:

Affluence and Influence, by Martin Gilens, professor of politics at Princeton University. Martin and a colleague, Benjamin Page, analyzed 1,779 policy outcomes over a period of more than 20 years. They concluded that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Who Rules America by G. Wlliam Domhoff, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at University of California, Santa Cruz. He explores the history of how a corporate plutocracy formed, how their social circles operate and reinforce their positions, and their financial incentives.

None of those people are on the fringe, they are operating purely on verified historical fact and solid scientific rigor.

if it were as bad as you say

There's more people in prisons doing so-cheap-it's-slavery labor now than there were actual slaves in the US before it was abolished.

317K people were arrested for Marijuana in the US in 2020, a low from 500k the previous year.

There are 1.2 Million people incarcerated in the US (40k of those for Marijuana alone), compared to 483K in all of the EU. This is despite the EU having more than double the US population.

they would be arresting people from jaywalking

Drug users were so heavily demonized over so many decades, that we don't really bat an eye if someone is imprisoned for drugs. Do you believe people would be passive if life sentences for jaywalking became a thing?

It’s also generally illegalized outside of the US except for a few specific tourism hotspots

Illegalized, but usually the penalty is only a small fine, not prison as a federal offense, and many of countries in the EU have decriminalized it for personal use, not just tourist hotspots.

Government are very aware of the effects of drugs and was even weaponized during the Opium Wars

my impression of it is that it’s not without risks

Marijuana is nowhere near as dangerous or addictive compared to any other commonly available recreational drug. Cigarettes, Opium, and alcohol, are far more addictive and damaging, all of which create a tremendous amount of societal costs, for families, medical facility overload, and societal.

I won't say people can't become dependent on weed, and kids should probably avoid it, but it inherently has no real withdrawal symptoms compared to any other substance, and is far easier to quit cold turkey than virtually any other drug with no physical harm.

The punishment for marijuana is completely disproportionate to the societal damage it is capable of causing, which in the worst case scenario, is minimal. To justify its criminalization by looking at the damages of opium use is bizarre when all of the above is taken into account. If we were to seriously consider that point of view deserve merit, then we must also seriously consider that unhealthy and addictive food should rightfully be criminalized as well. We have mountains of data and research showing how much societal harm they cause, and how addictive they can be, and in fact, are designed to be.