Still waiting on Congress to decriminalize and expunge records.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
254 points (98.8% liked)
News
37899 readers
2070 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
We need a better congress, that's for damn sure.
Well, 113 out of the 114 co-sponsors are Democrats, so maybe just a less Republican Congress?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617/cosponsors
This. The issue isn’t “congress” it’s half the body repeating the most regressive ideals among them.
Oh, don't worry, I'm with you. I'm from Oregon, and I can tell you that the people who represent my interests in the House and Senate are specifically not the problem here. (We do have some bad ones in the east, but not in my district.)
If there aren’t enough republicans to say no, then the democrats will just do it themselves.
I’d consider your point if the Democrats only voted for the bill. Cosponsoring is adding their name in support of the bill’s introduction to Congress in order to weigh on its importance.
I’m sure all 114 would vote in favor of it. I would expect most democrats would vote in favor of it. But the democrats have a pattern where if there needs to be N people to pass something, they’ll only be able to gather N-1 people to support it. That -1 will get attacked in the press and they’ll make a big fuss out of it, but importantly they’ll cause the bill to fail so that the democrats can continue to campaign on that point. See: healthcare, minimum wage
What the hell is "X"?
I'm legit pissed that a bunch of these journalists have stopped using "Formally known as Twitter".
Because seriously, fuck Musk. I will never stop dead naming that platform.
How the hell am I supposed to solve for X when I haven't been given the rest of the equation?
X + Videos / Joe Biden
Joe Biden is paying on x videos? Is this the new whitehouse.com?
It's the 24th letter of the Latin alphabet, but I'm not sure what that has to do with video
It’s pronounced “shitter.”
But it's spelled "xitter."
It’s the Chinese pronunciation of X, though it should probably be the Arabic pronunciation of X given Elon’s ties to Saudi Arabia.
No idea what that looks/sounds like.
Something irrelevant to modern discussions.
Including this one
Twitter's rebrand.
X gonna give it to ya
It’s NOT. A. Fuckin’ GAME!
It’s slang for ecstasy, a recreational drug which Biden needed to be on to give him the confidence needed to share the video.
This is the example of mental gymnastics people should reference.
“Slang” kids! He’s old!
"Look folks, no one should be in jail for merely using or possessing marijuana. Period,"
Pretty sure you're going to wind up in jail for possession of it as a Schedule III drug as well though, unless you have a prescription.
Possession of a controlled substance classified in Schedule III of the Drug Control Act, upon conviction, exposes the violator to a misdemeanor conviction for which the punishment is confinement in jail for up to twelve months and a fine up to $2,500, either or both.
I feel like I am missing a piece of the puzzle.
How does this legalize weed? This feel like the same thing as last time with less jail time.
This doesn't legalize weed, but arguably it's a step in the right direction.
It legalizes medical and research use of weed, which are currently federally illegal. Doesn't do much for recreational use though.
The President can’t decriminalize (legalize) a drug. That requires congressional legislation.
My napkin guess is that this is some sort of specific process/tactic, either it only allows ~~1~~ 2 levels of reclassification at a time or that was all that could be agreed on (with multiple agencies, likely the DEA limiting the pace). So either avoiding the Senate or the tiniest of steps that pretty much anybody will allow/defend. Slow-and-steady could be the plan, assuming Biden wins again and actually follows up.
Well that and it probably really helps with the turning-a-blind-eye, like the difference between ignoring/acquitting a hit-and-run fender-bender versus ignoring/acquitting the act of treating a no-traffic intersection (in clear conditions) like a 4-way stop. Maybe it will be enough to reduce hostility and move the relevant overton window over time while avoiding pushback.
EDIT: Looking at it more, this seems to be the department of HHS pressuring the DEA on clear medical use. As others say, the lower restriction might help further medical study which could in-turn result in further reclassification.
You'll still go to jail, but the president says he personally feels like you don't deserve to.
President Joe Biden, in a video posted Thursday on X, touted the proposal as "an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities."
That’s a bingo.
Feels a bit like they're trying to put the horse back in the barn. If it's only by prescription at the federal level, they may use that as legitimacy to crack down on recreational use and make it harder to get it for medical use.
It's crazy that you actually think that's what this is about.
Brb, going to the dispensary.
As much as I am a skeptic of everything this administration pretends to try to do, but making it legal for medical purposes is what started the legalization process in every legalized state. Biden doesn't make malicious moves, he just does half measures on everything that usually result in nothing but a show.
Doesn't really say what making it a schedule 3 drug actually means.
Yeah, we get it, taking it from 1 to 3 moves it from the group with heroin, LSD, ecstasy, methaqualone, and peyote, and puts it in the group with Tylenol with codeine, ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone.
https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling
What does that mean from a LEGAL perspective?
Someone caught with anabolic steroids without a prescription is still in trouble, yeah?
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/steroids-possession-lawyers.html
The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 defines steroids as a Schedule III drug. It assesses federal penalties for both the illegal possession and sale of steroids. The following are the federal punishments for both possession and sale of steroids:
Simple possession of steroids with no prior offenses:
Up to a year in federal prison; or
Minimum fine of $1,000.
Simple possession of steroids with certain prior convictions:
Minimum 15 days in prison, and up to two years in prison; or
Minimum fine of $2,000.
Possession with intent to sell
Up to five years in prison; or
Minimum fine of $5,000.
If I Use or Sell Steroids, What State Penalties Will I Face?
Each state has the right to legislate laws that regulate drugs they view as harmful. Most states echo the Federal scheduling of steroids as a Schedule III drug. Therefore, state punishments usually mirror the punishments for drugs of this category:
Simple possession can be characterized as either a misdemeanor or felony. One may face jail time of up to 2 years if in a state where steroid possession is considered a felony. A fine will usually be levied in states that list steroids as a misdemeanor.
The sale of steroids is a felony in every state. In some states, the punishment for selling steroids can be up to 7 years in prison.
So it looks like this whole notion of just re-scheduling it to "de-criminalize it" is a misnomer.
whole notion of just re-scheduling it to "de-criminalize it" is a misnomer.
Has anyone suggested rescheduling it would be akin to decriminalizing? I mean, maybe if it was moved to schedule v.
I think generally people have been reacting to this by pointing out it should just be descheduled.
Biden has been blurring the line using decriminalization in conjunction with these plans:
But simply changing the schedule is not the same thing.
Ty for the links
Amazing first steps. This will hopefully help to reduce costs for marijuana businesses, and their prices which will hopefully negatively affect the black market.