Not just Biden, Trump also refuses to use it. I think it's going to be a close race, like extremely close. Even if it were less close than I'm thinking of, I think if one of them promised to...
Not just Biden, Trump also refuses to use it. I think it's going to be a close race, like extremely close. Even if it were less close than I'm thinking of, I think if one of them promised to legalize marijuana, they would win.
The issue is that he meaningless panders to both sides. Trump isn't any more a bible toting Conservative than he is a weed smoking LGBT supporter. He is there for his own personal interests and is...
The issue is that he meaningless panders to both sides. Trump isn't any more a bible toting Conservative than he is a weed smoking LGBT supporter. He is there for his own personal interests and is willing to use and lie to anyone that allows him to continue.
I 100% could see him backing legal weed at the last second as a audible .
And, unfortunately, there has been recent research that finds a decline in mental faculties with regular marijuana use. It's closer to alcohol, heavy, regular use can cause permament problems with...
He’s looking for something definitive to assure him that legalizing won’t lead to serious mental or physical problems, in teens or adults.
And, unfortunately, there has been recent research that finds a decline in mental faculties with regular marijuana use. It's closer to alcohol, heavy, regular use can cause permament problems with retaining memories. Advocates always like to pretend there are no long-term effects, when it would be more beneficial to simply align it with acceptable drugs, rather than somehow better than them. Marijuana also has immense medical potential, but there is still the potential for long-term negative effects. In many ways it's a miracle drug, but it's also got some monkey's paw tendencies, like any psychoactive or hallucinogen.
If Biden is the extra-competent dude the article wants to assume he is, he may be considering this sort of thing. He may be playing his cards close to his chest. I don't know, and I'm not willing to bet he's the perfect candidate that would play it like this. I think he's playing conservatively to not jeopardize his position and win as many people as possible. Which other Democrat is running against him with a pro-cannabis agenda? Ooh, yeah, none. So, as long as Trump doesn't play that card, he doesn't have to and risk actively alienating a large swath of the country. Instead, he's playing the card that'll passively alienate a very small number of people who won't vote for him because he hasn't spoken up about cannabis.
Drug policy in the US is hard. Not in the least because of how bad the war on drugs and opioid epidemic truly has left the state of the country currently. We have to deal with that situation, and...
Drug policy in the US is hard. Not in the least because of how bad the war on drugs and opioid epidemic truly has left the state of the country currently. We have to deal with that situation, and the realities of the alternatives available now, not the alternatives we wished were available (like a gun control discussion that doesn't acknowledge today's prevalence of guns).
People using drugs is bad for health and huge costs for society. That's the same for legal and illegal drugs. The questions are is if the benefits outweigh the costs, and what sorts of things society should prevent individuals from doing to themselves because an individual's actions affect society.
Alcohol can be super easily made. It effectively can't be banned (and attempting to do so during prohibition was a terrible idea that decision-makers at the time should have recognized as a terrible idea because so many of their contemporaries did).
Alcohol being easy to make doesn't mean anything that's less harmful should be legal. If fermented grass created fentanyl, society shouldn't allow all narcotics weaker than fentanyl.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to question the legality of tobacco while cannabis is illegal. If discovered today, tobacco would surely be illegal. There are also the legitimate religious claims of its use by different indigenous populations.
The cultural and economic pressures to keep tobacco legal seem to be the determining factor. If its use continue to go down year by year, I could see it potentially be outlawed outside ceremonial use.
There are very legitimate incarceration-related arguments for changing cannabis laws.
There are also those who just want to get high and disregard the strong mental and physiological effects the drug has.
There are legitimate medicinal arguments, but they drown in so much "medical" marijuana use that in reality is just recreational drug use.
There are those whose lives get ruined by pot. There are those who think people should be free to ruin their lives by drug use as long as society then just abandons them.
This is hard. The different pros and cons and best ways of legislation are compound.
I don't think congress is ready for a nuanced debate to actually fix the state of drugs right now. Other things like mental healthcare and other things that interact with both opioids and cannabis have to be a central part of the conversation.
I frankly don't have the energy to get into a debate about how to deal with drugs, other than to say that other countries with extremely progressive takes such as complete decriminalization often...
I frankly don't have the energy to get into a debate about how to deal with drugs, other than to say that other countries with extremely progressive takes such as complete decriminalization often have lower rates of crime, less issues with public health with regards to drug abuse, and generally better outcomes. It is actually quite easy to deal with drugs, and I want to highlight that with the following quote of yours:
The questions are is if the benefits outweigh the costs, and what sorts of things society should prevent individuals from doing to themselves because an individual's actions affect society.
Here's the thing - it doesn't matter what laws society wants to impose upon its individuals, if the individuals are not going to be significantly swayed by said laws. Drug laws have been proven time and time again to not work - people are still going to pursue and use said drugs. Prohibition was proof that this doesn't work. The opioid crisis is proof that this doesn't work.
It is far more efficient and better for society to assume that the people that want to do drugs are going to find a way to do these drugs and instead focus on minimizing the harmful effects on society instead.
Yeah, just look at the absolutely disastrous conditions evident since legalization in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and...
Yeah, just look at the absolutely disastrous conditions evident since legalization in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Marijuana use is not ruining society, the vast majority of users face no long-term downsides, and the medicinal benefits are way larger than your casual dismissal of them.
Legalization does not increase teenage drug use (in fact, more studies than not show a decrease in teen usage 3 years after legalization in Colorado), has no proven correlation with crime, and (to your point) jailing people for years for personal-usage possession is an absolute travesty.
We haven't even touched on the financial gains from taxation and job creation.
Marijuana legalization is actually not a hard decision at all.
While I think this is a fair point, America leans heavily towards individuality on the individualism-collectivism spectrum (as evinced in gun control, freedom of speech, our piss-poor coronavirus...
People using drugs is bad for health and huge costs for society.
While I think this is a fair point, America leans heavily towards individuality on the individualism-collectivism spectrum (as evinced in gun control, freedom of speech, our piss-poor coronavirus response, etc). Obviously one could argue that the US has gone too far towards individualism or that we should make a narrow exception for certain drugs in particular, but generally America permits individuals to wittingly partake in activities to their own (and sometimes another's) detriment.
Not really. Biden is a politician and as such he tends to take current policy and the sentiments of the public into account for his stances and public statements. Those drugs are already legal and...
Joe's claims that he is concerned on the effects of marijuana use on physical and mental health seems a bit at odds with the fact that alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are all perfectly legal.
Not really. Biden is a politician and as such he tends to take current policy and the sentiments of the public into account for his stances and public statements. Those drugs are already legal and require no action to remain as such. Prohibition is politically costly and probably a bad idea (remember Al Capone?). If marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco had the same legal status than yes, it would be weird to single to single out marijuana. But that’s not the case.
Not just Biden, Trump also refuses to use it. I think it's going to be a close race, like extremely close. Even if it were less close than I'm thinking of, I think if one of them promised to legalize marijuana, they would win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration
The issue is that he meaningless panders to both sides. Trump isn't any more a bible toting Conservative than he is a weed smoking LGBT supporter. He is there for his own personal interests and is willing to use and lie to anyone that allows him to continue.
I 100% could see him backing legal weed at the last second as a audible .
And, unfortunately, there has been recent research that finds a decline in mental faculties with regular marijuana use. It's closer to alcohol, heavy, regular use can cause permament problems with retaining memories. Advocates always like to pretend there are no long-term effects, when it would be more beneficial to simply align it with acceptable drugs, rather than somehow better than them. Marijuana also has immense medical potential, but there is still the potential for long-term negative effects. In many ways it's a miracle drug, but it's also got some monkey's paw tendencies, like any psychoactive or hallucinogen.
If Biden is the extra-competent dude the article wants to assume he is, he may be considering this sort of thing. He may be playing his cards close to his chest. I don't know, and I'm not willing to bet he's the perfect candidate that would play it like this. I think he's playing conservatively to not jeopardize his position and win as many people as possible. Which other Democrat is running against him with a pro-cannabis agenda? Ooh, yeah, none. So, as long as Trump doesn't play that card, he doesn't have to and risk actively alienating a large swath of the country. Instead, he's playing the card that'll passively alienate a very small number of people who won't vote for him because he hasn't spoken up about cannabis.
Drug policy in the US is hard. Not in the least because of how bad the war on drugs and opioid epidemic truly has left the state of the country currently. We have to deal with that situation, and the realities of the alternatives available now, not the alternatives we wished were available (like a gun control discussion that doesn't acknowledge today's prevalence of guns).
People using drugs is bad for health and huge costs for society. That's the same for legal and illegal drugs. The questions are is if the benefits outweigh the costs, and what sorts of things society should prevent individuals from doing to themselves because an individual's actions affect society.
Alcohol can be super easily made. It effectively can't be banned (and attempting to do so during prohibition was a terrible idea that decision-makers at the time should have recognized as a terrible idea because so many of their contemporaries did).
Alcohol being easy to make doesn't mean anything that's less harmful should be legal. If fermented grass created fentanyl, society shouldn't allow all narcotics weaker than fentanyl.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to question the legality of tobacco while cannabis is illegal. If discovered today, tobacco would surely be illegal. There are also the legitimate religious claims of its use by different indigenous populations.
The cultural and economic pressures to keep tobacco legal seem to be the determining factor. If its use continue to go down year by year, I could see it potentially be outlawed outside ceremonial use.
There are very legitimate incarceration-related arguments for changing cannabis laws.
There are also those who just want to get high and disregard the strong mental and physiological effects the drug has.
There are legitimate medicinal arguments, but they drown in so much "medical" marijuana use that in reality is just recreational drug use.
There are those whose lives get ruined by pot. There are those who think people should be free to ruin their lives by drug use as long as society then just abandons them.
This is hard. The different pros and cons and best ways of legislation are compound.
I don't think congress is ready for a nuanced debate to actually fix the state of drugs right now. Other things like mental healthcare and other things that interact with both opioids and cannabis have to be a central part of the conversation.
I frankly don't have the energy to get into a debate about how to deal with drugs, other than to say that other countries with extremely progressive takes such as complete decriminalization often have lower rates of crime, less issues with public health with regards to drug abuse, and generally better outcomes. It is actually quite easy to deal with drugs, and I want to highlight that with the following quote of yours:
Here's the thing - it doesn't matter what laws society wants to impose upon its individuals, if the individuals are not going to be significantly swayed by said laws. Drug laws have been proven time and time again to not work - people are still going to pursue and use said drugs. Prohibition was proof that this doesn't work. The opioid crisis is proof that this doesn't work.
It is far more efficient and better for society to assume that the people that want to do drugs are going to find a way to do these drugs and instead focus on minimizing the harmful effects on society instead.
Yeah, just look at the absolutely disastrous conditions evident since legalization in Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Marijuana use is not ruining society, the vast majority of users face no long-term downsides, and the medicinal benefits are way larger than your casual dismissal of them.
Legalization does not increase teenage drug use (in fact, more studies than not show a decrease in teen usage 3 years after legalization in Colorado), has no proven correlation with crime, and (to your point) jailing people for years for personal-usage possession is an absolute travesty.
We haven't even touched on the financial gains from taxation and job creation.
Marijuana legalization is actually not a hard decision at all.
While I think this is a fair point, America leans heavily towards individuality on the individualism-collectivism spectrum (as evinced in gun control, freedom of speech, our piss-poor coronavirus response, etc). Obviously one could argue that the US has gone too far towards individualism or that we should make a narrow exception for certain drugs in particular, but generally America permits individuals to wittingly partake in activities to their own (and sometimes another's) detriment.
Not really. Biden is a politician and as such he tends to take current policy and the sentiments of the public into account for his stances and public statements. Those drugs are already legal and require no action to remain as such. Prohibition is politically costly and probably a bad idea (remember Al Capone?). If marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco had the same legal status than yes, it would be weird to single to single out marijuana. But that’s not the case.