teruterubozu
Member
She only stole an empty shell, the meat is still on Bernie's plate.
Hillary: reclassify marijuana to boost research
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
She only stole an empty shell, the meat is still on Bernie's plate.
...the fuck?
All this because she doesn't want to legalize marijuana for recreational use? Look I know that she could do better with some of the issues. And regardless of her voting record, it's baffling that she possesses this stance when the majority of Americans are for flat out legalization on all fronts...
...but seriously, saying shit like this isn't cool man.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
This is why I scratch my head with a few Clinton supporters on this site who give shit to Bernie supporters. I guess they forgot how batshit insane a few of their supporters were in 2008.
Grow up.
Fair enough. I'm a bit inclined to think that it's not that risky a position for a democrat to take though. I feel like there's probably significant overlap between voters who would never vote for a candidate that supports legalization and voters who would never vote for Hillary, or any Democrat for that matter.
Also, it might end up turning some non-voters into single issue voters. We all know how well Republicans do with their legion of single issue voters.
The stolen ideas complaints don't make much sense in this case because Hillary isn't necessarily siding with Bernie on the issue.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
If this is what she needs to say to get non-partying middle america, which is a larger base than stoners, then so be it. This is a state based issue (the health and moral welfare of its citizens) and change will come from the bottom up.
basically, once the states all decide they want that weed tax money, the feds will want to come up with specific regulations for it and get their cut too, which they can only fully benefit from AFTER legalizing/easing restrictions. The feds and courts are slow to change even under the best conditions.
Honestly, saying "I'm gonna legalize it!" this early on is kinda bullshit. It's a much more involved process than that and the only way to speed it up is to for the states themselves to push the issue. The good thing is that colorado is rich as fuck and others are following suit. The legalization of weed is not gonna be a sudden swift act like a console release, it's just something that's slowly rolling out and building, like Steam...or something. (or maybe more like Google Fiber, where you curse the people that get it before you and it isn't getting to you fast enough.)
basically, once the states all decide they want that weed tax money, the feds will want to come up with specific regulations for it and get their cut too, which they can only fully benefit from AFTER legalizing/easing restrictions. The feds and courts are slow to change even under the best conditions.
Honestly, saying "I'm gonna legalize it!" this early on is kinda bullshit. It's a much more involved process than that and the only way to speed it up is to for the states themselves to push the issue. The good thing is that colorado is rich as fuck and others are following suit. The legalization of weed is not gonna be a sudden swift act like a console release, it's just something that's slowly rolling out and building, like Steam...or something. (or maybe more like Google Fiber, where you curse the people that get it before you and it isn't getting to you fast enough.)
Jesus.
teruterubozu
Member
OK, stop quoting that dude. We get it, it's horrible.
VendettaRed07
Member
She's making far left policies more palatable for moderates. Her approach is to put policies that chip away the obstacles in place rather than push for outright victory
States like Massachusetts and California look like they are going to be voting on legalization soon. Any bill that pushes for national legalization will likely not gain enough traction until big dominoes like them fall.
teruterubozu
Member
I actually see this as the opposite. She' pandering to the far left, but coming up way short in order to placate the moderates.
Aaronology
Member
We're facing the threat of the GOP controlling all three branches and nominating several USSC seats. Real talk, if her lukewarm middle of the road response to the issue of legalization actually secures her more votes from people on both sides of the debate, great. This election is just too vital for me to not champion a strong candidate who isn't going to do anything and everything to secure victory. I similarly was not disappointed by Obama's former stance on gay marriage given the political reality of the time, and this is comparatively much less important.
VendettaRed07
Member
I mean, that's a fair position to take. I really don't know what she's thinking or planning to do in the future, but based on how the Democratic Party has operated since the "new left" strategy started in the 90s, this is how they've handled most issues.
Obama was like this on gay marriage. He didn't even support it when he was running for office, but pushed for it towards the end of his first term as he felt there was enough momentum where embracing it would be an effective strategy.
teruterubozu
Member
I disagree. The disparity of demographics behind marijuana incarceration is absolutely serious. Moving it to Schedule II does absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
You beat me to it. It severely punishes minorities who are given much harsher sentences compared to whites.
Forget schedule II. What really needs to happen is to question why it was banned in the first place. IN other words, I want Hillary to state her reasons why the The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was a good act to pass and why it needs to be kept on the books. What led it to pass and how has that rhetoric changed. I want her to explain Harry J. Anslinger's statements for banning marijuana that helped pass this act. If anyone is unclear on that last point, Anslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and had this to say about the banning act:
Good times.
Oh, and for sure I would love to get her on record explaining why hemp was included in the ban in the first place and why it deserves to be schedule II as well. What are her reasons for keeping the ban on a product we knew was completely harmless and in fact beneficial to the industry before, during, and after the The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 that banned it.
What I'm getting here is I want education. I want Hillary, Obama, and other leaders in power to throw away the bullshit and talk straight. Instead of hiding behind "Oh, well, we just want to research it more to see if there's any crazy negative influences", they need to start answering the question of "why and how was it banned in the first place and has it done any measurable or appreciable good since then".
BUT, I'm happy that she's moving in the right direction on the issue. Just need to keep pushing, pushing, and pushing her from the left.
Good times.
Oh, and for sure I would love to get her on record explaining why hemp was included in the ban in the first place and why it deserves to be schedule II as well. What are her reasons for keeping the ban on a product we knew was completely harmless and in fact beneficial to the industry before, during, and after the The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 that banned it.
What I'm getting here is I want education. I want Hillary, Obama, and other leaders in power to throw away the bullshit and talk straight. Instead of hiding behind "Oh, well, we just want to research it more to see if there's any crazy negative influences", they need to start answering the question of "why and how was it banned in the first place and has it done any measurable or appreciable good since then".
BUT, I'm happy that she's moving in the right direction on the issue. Just need to keep pushing, pushing, and pushing her from the left.
Aaronology
Member
Mm, I hadn't considered that actually. Thanks, Teruteru, you're right. It's definitely a very serious issue and I'm a little shocked how I didn't consider the War on Drugs angle.
My underlying feeling on Hillary playing politics with this to secure more votes doesn't change, though.
Removing it from the scheduling won't do anything from a legal standpoint, either. The vast majority of narcotics incarcerations are on the state/local level.
Unless you think all of the states dragging their feet on legalization are just waiting to take direction from Washington, which doesn't sound correct to me.
I was an Obama supporter in 2008. My conscience is clean.
Wishing for someone to die - classy, but par for the course for extremist Bernie supporters. I hated it when the Ron Paul supporters did it, and I hate it double for the Bernie supporters (since they should actually know better).
teruterubozu
Member
I agree. Not sure what you're arguing about. Many states are already ignoring the Schedule. I wouldn't even call what Clinton is proposing "an incremental step forward," it's just moving goalposts with the illusion of doing something progressive. It's like the absolute least meaningful and "safest" thing you can do for the cause.
LaserBuddha
Member
I never understand what these statements are supposed to mean.
This is how our form of government works. Politicians need the support of the people to win an office so they do things that the people like. Ta da, representative democracy.
If BLM puts public pressure on a candidate to include police brutality in their platform, and they do, is the candidate playing politics? Is BLM playing politics?
If you want to refer to basically the only thing politicians do as "playing politics" that's fine. If you're waiting for a politician who acts solely in accordance with their own opinions and priorities, and for those decisions to magically line up with your opinions and priorities, that person will never exist. Politicians play to the crowd because that is their job description.
<- Not a Hillary fan but agree with this position.
My point was that nothing less than pushing for full federal legalization is going to make a big top-down difference in incarceration rates, and I think you'd have to get that through Congress. So there's nothing either Hillary or Bernie can do about it other than say they want to do it.
teruterubozu
Member
Which is why I said she shoulda kept her mouth shut about it. It's like a net-zero effect.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
Hillary being forced to move left is a good thing. You know, since the Democrats had to recalibrate by moving right after the Republicans dominated them post-Carter/Great Society, I've come to expect pragmatic center-right governance from Democratic presidents, and that's what we've received from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
That we live in a time where Democratic candidates in the primary can now force the pragmatic centrist front-runner back to the left AND it's viable for this to happen without harming the general election viability of the front-runner is great.
That we live in a time where Democratic candidates in the primary can now force the pragmatic centrist front-runner back to the left AND it's viable for this to happen without harming the general election viability of the front-runner is great.
teruterubozu
Member
That'll change when the presidential candidates are vying for the Independents and undecideds. It always happens when the primaries are over.
Aaronology
Member
Ah... My choice of words might not have been the best, but then again I don't see the phrase in a negative light. You're most certainly preaching to the choice here, Buddha.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I would argue, based on shifts in polling on a number of key ideas, that the Independents and undecideds have moved to the left to at least some degree in key election areas, particularly in terms of policies that promote economic populism, which is more of a Democratic Party thing than it is a Republican Party thing right now, but also in terms of lesser issues like marijuana legalization and gay marriage.
teruterubozu
Member
Perhaps, but the candidates will still speak to them regardless, as if they haven't decided. That's just how the generals work. The primaries are when you secure your (core) base.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
not sure what i'm defending here. the poster i quoted was complaining about American democracy
It could be that she was forced to the left, but the country as a whole has changed it mind -- a lot, and fast -- on this particular issue. There are things, like TPP, you can just go "lol $hillary", but she's making prison reform a big part of her campaign, and has talked at length about one of the biggest stories she's heard on the campaign trail is about drug addiction. Having a more enlightened opinion over marijuana laws is never a bad thing, even if I don't think this goes far enough.
That's pretty uncommon -- you sort of have to run on your primary statements, which has been a thorn in the side of Republican presidential candidates for some time. There's a lot less tacting to the middle than you'd think.
That's pretty uncommon -- you sort of have to run on your primary statements, which has been a thorn in the side of Republican presidential candidates for some time. There's a lot less tacting to the middle than you'd think.
teruterubozu
Member
It's not that it doesn't go far enough, it doesn't go anywhere. It's completely toothless.
I'm afraid that this would cause many people to get complacent about marijuana remaining classified as an illicit substance, in the same neighborhood as opium, meth, and cocaine. They'll pretend like something's been done, when all the while, the horrific tragedy of federal marijuana prohibition is still allowed to continue unabated. It would be one thing if there was scientific research that led to it's being considered among that group of substances, but that research just doesn't exist. (And that's not for lack of trying, or because it's illegal.) This is ultimately perpetrating a myth which has been disproven for decades, one that has and continues to lead to the destruction of families via an overzealous and racially-biased criminal justice system.
- Status