The original cannabis laws in the 30s had no justification and was purely political. The drug laws and creation of the DEA in the 60s had no justification and was purely political. The War on...
The original cannabis laws in the 30s had no justification and was purely political. The drug laws and creation of the DEA in the 60s had no justification and was purely political. The War on Drugs started in the 80s had no justification and was purely political. The continued prohibition of drugs has no justification and is purely political.
Within reason. I think weed and shrooms and LSD probably don't warrant particularly strict controls on them. But I don't think meth, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine should not be prohibited. MDMA too,...
Within reason. I think weed and shrooms and LSD probably don't warrant particularly strict controls on them. But I don't think meth, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine should not be prohibited. MDMA too, probably. Prison time for possession is probably too much for those, but I still think it should carry mandatory probation and a fee. Distribution should continue to get the stick.
I don't think possession - in personal use quantities - should ever warrant a penalty beyond confiscation except in circumstances where you pose a direct danger to others (driving or working in a...
I don't think possession - in personal use quantities - should ever warrant a penalty beyond confiscation except in circumstances where you pose a direct danger to others (driving or working in a safety-critical job for example).
The rationale for these penalties typically seems to be along the lines of "the government wants to keep you from ruining your life with drugs," but once you have a criminal record for something like possession, that can affect your ability to rent a property, get certain jobs, or even enter other countries.
Serious opioids and amphetamines have too much of a social cost to not have some penalty for possession imo. It just needs to be structured correctly. Instead of prison, mandatory rehab and...
Serious opioids and amphetamines have too much of a social cost to not have some penalty for possession imo. It just needs to be structured correctly. Instead of prison, mandatory rehab and conditionally removing the criminal charge on successful completion of rehab, plus a fine to help pay for the rehab centers.
Many people abuse drugs recreationally. Additionally, even if you're trying to treat chronic pain or something, it's always going to be a net negative for you as an individual to use illicit...
Many people abuse drugs recreationally. Additionally, even if you're trying to treat chronic pain or something, it's always going to be a net negative for you as an individual to use illicit opioids.
Rehab is effectively healthcare for people already addicted. It can include medicated rehab as well. The charge is both deterrent and a carrot to finishing rehab. The fine, from a policy angle, is for the program to be more self-sustaining.
Rehab is great and all, but why are you in favor of slapping a criminal charge on top of it? This does no actual good here, and smells to me like a remnant of the typical retributive justice...
Rehab is great and all, but why are you in favor of slapping a criminal charge on top of it? This does no actual good here, and smells to me like a remnant of the typical retributive justice thinking prevalent in America today. Furthermore, remember that criminal penalties have a bad history when it comes to deterring crime, especially when addictive substances are involved.
You can require someone undergo rehab without also labeling them a criminal and potentially seriously undermining their life. Considering that drug use is, from my understanding at least, very much correlated with and preceded by high stress, adding a criminal charge would likely push addicts further in to their addiction as a coping mechanism for the added stress.
The social cost of outlawing them is frankly far more expensive and prohibitive. I say this as someone who works in the field, has lost loved ones to these substances, and struggled with them...
The social cost of outlawing them is frankly far more expensive and prohibitive. I say this as someone who works in the field, has lost loved ones to these substances, and struggled with them myself at one point. Just to point out that I’m not blind to the costs. There are super cheap and effective ways to deal with these problems but they do require some level of nuance and thinking outside the box. For instance heroin maintenance therapy. I’m fine with them not being sold at every corner store, but the barrier to access should basically be asking for a prescription. Couple that with money in education and well funded widely available treatment and many of the social ills that we chalk up to drug use would be a thing of the past.
Black markets will always lead to murders and increased harm. The only way to get rid of black markets is to create alternatives through decriminalization.
Black markets will always lead to murders and increased harm. The only way to get rid of black markets is to create alternatives through decriminalization.
Legalize it all. If people want to do the harder drugs, they will find it. Forcing them to go to shady sources doesn't do them or society as a whole any favors. Most importantly, they should know...
Legalize it all. If people want to do the harder drugs, they will find it. Forcing them to go to shady sources doesn't do them or society as a whole any favors.
Most importantly, they should know exactly what they are consuming. Street drugs are mixed with all sorts of harmful shit. Most obviously, fentanyl is an extremely prevalent and dangerous risk today.
Legalize it, give them access to clean drugs from legitimate sources. They are human too, even if they are making poor life decisions.
Maybe I'm uninformed about this, but have there been any actual repercussions for the credit card companies about marijuana as a whole? I feel like this move from Mastercard is unnecessarily petty...
Maybe I'm uninformed about this, but have there been any actual repercussions for the credit card companies about marijuana as a whole? I feel like this move from Mastercard is unnecessarily petty and also just super overstepping as a company, like what they did with porn sites a couple of years ago.
I use cash when I go to my dispensary, it's probably literally the only other way I use case nowadays.
It's less petty and more risk-averse. Say Desantis wins in 2024 and decides to crack down hard on weed. Sure that's unlikely, but it's far from impossible. And a company as big as Mastercard would...
It's less petty and more risk-averse. Say Desantis wins in 2024 and decides to crack down hard on weed. Sure that's unlikely, but it's far from impossible.
And a company as big as Mastercard would be an easy target if Desantis really wanted a bunch of news to distract from literally anything. All their lawyers would be useless if they were violating the law in such a blatant manner, and the company and it's investors would lose a total of 370 billion dollars.
When you're playing with that much money you don't take risks you don't have to.
If visa and Mastercard both allowed cannabis transactions they could literally say suck it to anyone trying to regulate them. The fallout of them having to close I. The us would be incredible.
If visa and Mastercard both allowed cannabis transactions they could literally say suck it to anyone trying to regulate them. The fallout of them having to close I. The us would be incredible.
Because as we all know Republican politicians would never just randomly try to destabilize the country for small political gains... Oh wait, no, they absolutely would, look at the debt ceiling...
Because as we all know Republican politicians would never just randomly try to destabilize the country for small political gains...
Oh wait, no, they absolutely would, look at the debt ceiling every time that rolls around, or Tuberville trying to collapse the military command structure.
The original cannabis laws in the 30s had no justification and was purely political. The drug laws and creation of the DEA in the 60s had no justification and was purely political. The War on Drugs started in the 80s had no justification and was purely political. The continued prohibition of drugs has no justification and is purely political.
Within reason. I think weed and shrooms and LSD probably don't warrant particularly strict controls on them. But I don't think meth, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine should not be prohibited. MDMA too, probably. Prison time for possession is probably too much for those, but I still think it should carry mandatory probation and a fee. Distribution should continue to get the stick.
I don't think possession - in personal use quantities - should ever warrant a penalty beyond confiscation except in circumstances where you pose a direct danger to others (driving or working in a safety-critical job for example).
The rationale for these penalties typically seems to be along the lines of "the government wants to keep you from ruining your life with drugs," but once you have a criminal record for something like possession, that can affect your ability to rent a property, get certain jobs, or even enter other countries.
Serious opioids and amphetamines have too much of a social cost to not have some penalty for possession imo. It just needs to be structured correctly. Instead of prison, mandatory rehab and conditionally removing the criminal charge on successful completion of rehab, plus a fine to help pay for the rehab centers.
I don't think a fine or criminal charge make sense. If someone's using sketchy refined opioids what they probably need is free accessible healthcare.
Many people abuse drugs recreationally. Additionally, even if you're trying to treat chronic pain or something, it's always going to be a net negative for you as an individual to use illicit opioids.
Rehab is effectively healthcare for people already addicted. It can include medicated rehab as well. The charge is both deterrent and a carrot to finishing rehab. The fine, from a policy angle, is for the program to be more self-sustaining.
Rehab is great and all, but why are you in favor of slapping a criminal charge on top of it? This does no actual good here, and smells to me like a remnant of the typical retributive justice thinking prevalent in America today. Furthermore, remember that criminal penalties have a bad history when it comes to deterring crime, especially when addictive substances are involved.
You can require someone undergo rehab without also labeling them a criminal and potentially seriously undermining their life. Considering that drug use is, from my understanding at least, very much correlated with and preceded by high stress, adding a criminal charge would likely push addicts further in to their addiction as a coping mechanism for the added stress.
The social cost of outlawing them is frankly far more expensive and prohibitive. I say this as someone who works in the field, has lost loved ones to these substances, and struggled with them myself at one point. Just to point out that I’m not blind to the costs. There are super cheap and effective ways to deal with these problems but they do require some level of nuance and thinking outside the box. For instance heroin maintenance therapy. I’m fine with them not being sold at every corner store, but the barrier to access should basically be asking for a prescription. Couple that with money in education and well funded widely available treatment and many of the social ills that we chalk up to drug use would be a thing of the past.
Black markets will always lead to murders and increased harm. The only way to get rid of black markets is to create alternatives through decriminalization.
Legalize it all. If people want to do the harder drugs, they will find it. Forcing them to go to shady sources doesn't do them or society as a whole any favors.
Most importantly, they should know exactly what they are consuming. Street drugs are mixed with all sorts of harmful shit. Most obviously, fentanyl is an extremely prevalent and dangerous risk today.
Legalize it, give them access to clean drugs from legitimate sources. They are human too, even if they are making poor life decisions.
Maybe I'm uninformed about this, but have there been any actual repercussions for the credit card companies about marijuana as a whole? I feel like this move from Mastercard is unnecessarily petty and also just super overstepping as a company, like what they did with porn sites a couple of years ago.
I use cash when I go to my dispensary, it's probably literally the only other way I use case nowadays.
It's less petty and more risk-averse. Say Desantis wins in 2024 and decides to crack down hard on weed. Sure that's unlikely, but it's far from impossible.
And a company as big as Mastercard would be an easy target if Desantis really wanted a bunch of news to distract from literally anything. All their lawyers would be useless if they were violating the law in such a blatant manner, and the company and it's investors would lose a total of 370 billion dollars.
When you're playing with that much money you don't take risks you don't have to.
Edit: Spelling
If visa and Mastercard both allowed cannabis transactions they could literally say suck it to anyone trying to regulate them. The fallout of them having to close I. The us would be incredible.
Because as we all know Republican politicians would never just randomly try to destabilize the country for small political gains...
Oh wait, no, they absolutely would, look at the debt ceiling every time that rolls around, or Tuberville trying to collapse the military command structure.
What would the repercussions be? Legal? They are following federal law, after all. Until that changes, not much you can do about it.