davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Someone miss a weed smoking session?
Hillary: reclassify marijuana to boost research
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Someone miss a weed smoking session?
There's plenty of available research about marijuana in terms of the recreational use of it. It's already widely accepted that it's nowhere near as bad as the drugs on Schedule II, so why bother putting it on there? The only reason it's on a schedule in the first place is entirely political. I mean, who are we kidding here? Pretending like it's just as addictive and harmful as cocaine is ludicrous.
What's being blocked by being on Schedule I are studies looking into the medical use of marijuana, which would be entirely different than the recreational studies that already exist. Doing clinical trials on patients is a much more thorough and expensive process than testing marijuana smokers.
LOL
cocaine isn't even the ridiculous comparison for me, it's all the fucking opiates. weed is on the same level as heroin basically. yeah, that seems logical to me.
TheExecutive
Member
Let's put marijuana right next to cocaine for shits and giggles instead of a schedule III or IV drug. If you don't have the gumption to say what you think- like some in this thread make it seem like- then shut the fuck up. Or maybe she is just that stupid. Either way if you aren't going to speak your mind or intelligently respond to an issue then don't speak at all.
Hillary is a pandering hack.
Hillary is a pandering hack.
like clockwork
If anything, this discussion demonstrates how broken American democracy, if it can be called, is. The argument is that Clinton was consistently to the left of most Senate Democrats, and I'll aasume that claim is accurate. And yet she is unable or unwilling to take the position in marijuana that is held by 58% of the American public. The view of 43% of the population determines almost the entire spectrum that is represented in the elected leadership, and we are told that it is unrealistic for us to expect a major presidential candidate to move beyond that spectrum to the view of the 58%.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
a president doesn't even pass laws. the most substantial power the president has in the legislative process is vetoing.
you want marijuana legalized, vote for congress. of course liberals, including those who want marijuana legalized, don't show up at the polls for those elections.
This is a strange defense. Who cares if you agree with a presidential candidate on policy or not? It's irrelevant!
teruterubozu
Member
Ah, so she's running on her futility. LoL.
Me neither. There are folks here who remind me of FreeRepublic characters who claim that, for example, Jeb Bush really isn't a "true conservative" because of a few selected marquee-issue stances. No matter what Jeb says, he isn't good enough to them; these folks are deluded, and refuse to acknowledge the fact that Jeb would govern on the vast majority of issues as a conservative.
Same with Hillary. No matter what she says for this crowd it won't be good enough for them. And they claim to care about progressivism and progressive causes, but they're all too willing to stick a dagger in their causes for a few decades if they don't get their way this time.
(And to be clear: it isn't reflective of all Bernie supporters. The sane ones out there who are willing to accept the results of a primary no matter how it goes vastly outnumber the I-want-Bernie-or-the-world-can-burn crowd.. but that louder minority is very, very loud.)
I'm convinced that a lot of this loud minority is young, and they have yet to experience the process of losing, followed by watching their causes get shredded and further delayed years or decades by the damage put-up by a Republican administration. They want their whole loaf of bread NOW - a half loaf or 66% loaf isn't acceptable - and they're willing to let the GOP burn the bakery down if they don't get their way. Sounds a lot like the Tea Party, to be honest.
teruterubozu
Member
And yet people who complain about Bernie supporters seem very young to me too. Like they weren't around in 2008 when it was 100x worse.
This is a walk in the park compared to 2008. And the candidates themselves have conducted themselves in rather honorable fashion.
The difference being that 2008 was actually a competitive primary.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I honestly don't remember it being this bad, but maybe that's just because I wasn't using Reddit or any social media in 2008.
Big Baybee
Member
A whole lotta this.
The problem with this line of thinking is watching it through the prism of the last 30 years.
Fact of the matter is that Nixon who began the War on Drugs was to the left of Obama and Hillary in many ways, so over the last few decades democrats have been pandering to republicans instead of looking to move the issues to the left and be a common sense party. It's sad to watch people defend this and validate it as normality
Different times but below is a list of issues which pretty much prove Nixon was closer to Sanders on many issues compared to Clinton/Obama.
- Got the US out of Vietnam.
- He was a keen foreign policy type whose diplomatic efforts strengthened our relationships with both established and emerging world powers.
- He implemented the first significant federal affirmative action program.
- He dramatically increased spending on federal employee salaries.
- He oversaw the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South (something the crackers where I grew up were none too happy about).
- He proposed a guaranteed annual wage (aka a “negative income tax”
.
- He advocated comprehensive national health insurance (single payer) for all Americans.
- He imposed wage and price controls in times of economic crisis. This wasn’t a terribly good idea, but it was the furthest thing from a conservative idea. Truth is, it was positively socialist.
- He indexed Social Security for inflation and created Supplemental Security Income.
- He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.
- He promoted the Legacy of Parks program.
- He appointed four Supreme Court Justices. Three of them voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade.
teruterubozu
Member
Well there it is. I still don't know whether Bernie is seen as a joke, threat, distraction, what? But whatever it is, it's passionate.
Which made the "PUMA" people significantly more dangerous than the dozens of Bernie supporters who you believe may not vote for your candidate. Not really doing your side any favors with that defense.
the answer you'll get is likely a joke. however the vitriol seen in posts dismissing him would indicate otherwise.
SenorArdilla
Member
I like to think of Bernie as Sisyphus pushing a boulder uphill only to have it roll back down.
I get banned for calling Ben Carson an uncle tom, but this shit goes unnoticed?
I heard many people saying it was a good thing Bernie was pushing Clinton left on issues like this. And now people are calling Clinton weak and unoriginal for supporting a small yet important change on drug policy that everyone supports? I don't get it. We want Hillary to support these measures. How is this a bad thing?
It's not even Bernie. He's doing what he's doing and he's probably well aware that short of the discovery of pictures of Hillary killing people at Benghazi he doesn't really have a chance. It's similar to CNN endlessly calling the 2012 race a dead heat when it clearly wasn't. It's tiring arguing with the same small subsection of people who's perception of the reality of this primary is distorted to think that it's actually a competitive race.
I'll vote for Bernie 100% if he wins the nomination and I'll even volunteer to help the campaign. Because he isn't the candidate I'm pushing for doesn't mean I hate him.
It's not a defense. It's reality. Having to argue with people the reality of the situation is tiring.
Something something corporate overlords something something anything to win
teruterubozu
Member
But that happens in almost every election - delusional people with hopeless candidates pining for the long shot. It's election season.
it doesn't really do anything to positively affect the current status quo. states that have gone forward and legalized for recreational use would be in the same position they are in today. I'd give clinton props if she piggybacked removing it from the list of scheduled substances. I'm not down on this because she's not being original, really don't care about that angle. I'm down on this because reclassifying marijuana as a schedule II drug is a joke and really only benefits the perception of hillary's campaign and probably the drug industry.
You're right. The reality is, Hillary supporters threatening to sit out the election were far more dangerous than the Bernie supporters who may do the same simply due to the numbers. Another bit of reality is that the "candidate B's crazy supporters are going to hand the Republicans the election" deflection is extremely tired. Might as well stop parroting it. In the unlikely event that Hillary loses the general, I doubt many are going to be sympathetic with that excuse people are trying so hard to put out there.
The Artisan
Member
i like sanders's answer more. legalize it.
Honestly, this is the first election I have ever seen where people are more likely to attack the supporters of a candidate rather than the candidate themself. It's so baffling and counterproductive to the health of the Democratic Party as a whole that the phenomena is shocking to me considering the people who are arguing on either "side" probably agree 99 percent of the time on other issues.
I don't disagree with being frustrated at the pace of change. And I don't at all begrudge anyone for supporting Bernie in the primaries; he's fantastic, and if he wins the nomination, I'm going to enthusiastically line-up with him, donate, advocate, etc.
Where I depart from some here, and honestly, where I have yet to see an effective response is this: I just don't understand the mental gymnastics of "well, my candidate lost. Now I'm going to act in a manner that will help undermine the long-term prospects of ever accomplishing those policy changes in my lifetime."
The logical thing would be to see to it that those causes remain viable, so that we can continue fighting for them.. wouldn't it?
(this is one reason why I make it a point to praise how the candidates have conducted themselves. They've been downright cordial with each other, especially compared with some of the nastiness of seasons past.)
teruterubozu
Member
Once the primaries are over the vitriol will shift to the opposing parties. The media narrative will make sure of it.
I think this line of thought is largely overstated based on the, yes, very vocal yet very minor few.
Henchmen21
Banned
Hillary just recently called/implied Bernie was sexist prompting Planed Parenthood to support him. I'd hardly call that cordial.
The Artisan
Member
if it's fully legalized then it can also have research done on and no one has to still wait for its recreational legalization while the research goes.
exmachina64
Banned
The American political system is this way by design. Change was meant to be slow and happen over decades. Fifty-eight percent of Americans might be for legalization of recreational marijuana use, but you also have to take into account how those people are geographically distributed and the political makeup of the rest of the country.
Unless something completely unexpected happens, marijuana legalization will happen on a state-by-state basis and might take twenty more years to happen in places like Alabama.
Edit: To further illustrate this, if fifty-eight percent of Americans are for legalizing marijuana, that means that 185,600,000 Americans are pro-legalization versus 134,400,000 who are against it.
The problem with this line of thinking is watching it through the prism of the last 30 years.
Fact of the matter is that Nixon who began the War on Drugs was to the left of Obama and Hillary in many ways, so over the last few decades democrats have been pandering to republicans instead of looking to move the issues to the left and be a common sense party. It's sad to watch people defend this and validate it as normality
Different times but below is a list of issues which pretty much prove Nixon was closer to Sanders on many issues compared to Clinton/Obama.
- Got the US out of Vietnam.
- He was a keen foreign policy type whose diplomatic efforts strengthened our relationships with both established and emerging world powers.
- He implemented the first significant federal affirmative action program.
- He dramatically increased spending on federal employee salaries.
- He oversaw the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South (something the crackers where I grew up were none too happy about).
- He proposed a guaranteed annual wage (aka a “negative income tax”
- He advocated comprehensive national health insurance (single payer) for all Americans.
- He imposed wage and price controls in times of economic crisis. This wasn’t a terribly good idea, but it was the furthest thing from a conservative idea. Truth is, it was positively socialist.
- He indexed Social Security for inflation and created Supplemental Security Income.
- He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.
- He promoted the Legacy of Parks program.
- He appointed four Supreme Court Justices. Three of them voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade.
Reagan pushed the country to the right for at least a century.
It's true. The system of governance in the USA was designed to make it difficult to make major changes. However, it also was designed in a way that makes it very difficult to go back and undo changes made. There are so many more veto points than in many other governance systems, especially Parliamentary systems. I think what happens a lot of the time in this country is that people see policies being quickly implemented in Canada/European countries and wonder why changes can't be made here.
The difference between executive power between Presidential and Parliamentary systems have a lot to do with. When the executive is chosen based on the results of the legislature election, of course there will be less gridlock.
teruterubozu
Member
Which is exactly why rescheduling the drug to Schedule II (next to cocaine, meth and opiates) makes absolutely no sense. The states pushing for legalization have been ignoring the Schedule already. Yes, it will become easier to conduct research, but it will still be classified under a wholly unscientific, politically- and legally-based classification system which is fucked in the first place.
SenorArdilla
Member
Reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to II for research is a non-answer. Though you could argue that this is probably the same stance that Obama took with same-sex marriage back in 2008. Taking an opposing stance for the general election to secure votes.
This is great and all but appealing to the inherent difficulties of the (systemically fucked) system is a weird way to respond to the question of whether or not marijuana should remain illegal.
It's a yes or no question. Most liberals say "yes". Hillary Clinton says "no". "But it's haaaaaaard" isn't a good excuse for being lukewarm on it.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Going from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 just seems like a move you do when you don't want to take a real stance, and just want to try and waddle with feet in each camp, so you can get some of the stoners and some of the "marijuana is the devil".
There already has been done a lot of research. It needs to be decriminalization like in Portugal, not more of this shit.
These stupid approaches to drugs are a part of the reason why a lot of non-violent drug offenders are in prison. If you're going to vote for Hilary, you support the status quo of keeping people in prison who have addiction problems.
It's a really important step to take a dedicated stance on this.
There already has been done a lot of research. It needs to be decriminalization like in Portugal, not more of this shit.
These stupid approaches to drugs are a part of the reason why a lot of non-violent drug offenders are in prison. If you're going to vote for Hilary, you support the status quo of keeping people in prison who have addiction problems.
It's a really important step to take a dedicated stance on this.
I'm not arguing about why I think it should be legal or not. I think it absolutely should be legal. I'm pointing out that the institutional structure of our country makes changing things like this very difficult. There are tens of millions of people in this country who believe it should still be illegal. I'm arguing that it currently doesn't make political sense to make it a platform issue and risk alienating some of those tens of millions who still think it should be illegal. I don't think it's an issue that is going to drive more people to vote Democrat than turn off some people from voting Democrat.
I don't think running on legal weed will provide a net gain of voters and it doesn't make political sense to run on.
teruterubozu
Member
Plus the Feds can say "not enough research" and delay this shit indefinitely (and they will). It's such hollow crap.
Out of curiosity, given that you think coming out in favor of legalization would be detrimental as far as electability is concerned, would you be disappointed if she did so during the election season?
teruterubozu
Member
She shouldn't have said anything at all, really.
1) It looks like she's reacting to Bernie. 2) It's an almost negligible proposition that doesn't resonate with anyone.
But I guess she inevitably has to say something regarding legalization/medical marijuana.
1) It looks like she's reacting to Bernie. 2) It's an almost negligible proposition that doesn't resonate with anyone.
But I guess she inevitably has to say something regarding legalization/medical marijuana.
Yes I would. I don't think it's a good issue to put in the national platform yet.
Right? Let's make this plant illegal. WTF? So stupid.
And_Gignac
Member
Uh, if I search the internet I would certainly find plenty of them. But even if I found thousands, I still wouldnt say Clinton supporters are tea partiers, even when a section of those who supported her during 2008 gave rise to the birther movement.
And mess, gay marriage support was at 55% just before it went to the courts. Going by Gallup, marijuana is at 58% right now. And you say this is not a good issue to rail for? I think you are just blindly defending Clintons tepid position on the issue.
VendettaRed07
Member
The entire point of a political party is to be on the same page on most issues
I don't get the "stealing" of ideas complaints. This isn't like an artist is stealing somebody else's guitar riffs or melodies.
Is Bernie Sanders stealing from Al Gore on climate change issues?...
The more dems that take stances on more issues like Warren and Sanders the better.
I don't get the "stealing" of ideas complaints. This isn't like an artist is stealing somebody else's guitar riffs or melodies.
Is Bernie Sanders stealing from Al Gore on climate change issues?...
The more dems that take stances on more issues like Warren and Sanders the better.
- Status