this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
159 points (100.0% liked)

News

30755 readers
3389 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] quams69@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Decriminalize drugs and defund the DEA 👍

[–] MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Abolish the DEA.

Deschedule cannabis & mushrooms.

[–] NGC2346@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They are now seeing how profitable the plant is, so they want to change the narrative. Don't be fooled.

Edit: The reclassification will just put the plant in its due place, before its reputation was tarnished by the war on drugs.

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bro they will never let homies grow at home tho opium i mean

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

DEA: Ok, it's reclassified.

Indiana: Cool. We'll make it 5 years in prison for smoking a joint.

I hate this state.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wisconsin is gonna be the last state to legalize because we're the Alabama of the fucking north. Your 5th DUI probably has lesser consequences than getting caught holding here.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're the Alabama of the north? Have you ever heard the Hoosier accent? And both Dan Quayle and Mike Pence come from Indiana. Also, we once tried to legislate pi. And not to the correct value of pi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Lol fair points, tho we do have quite an accent up here dontchyaknow? But I guess you have Gary, IN too and all we have is a bunch of serial killers.

[–] negativenull@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

The states surrounding Indiana:

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Can the DEA even reclassify drugs? All the DEA could do, in theory, is decriminalise and not prosecute - which they're kind of doing already.

It's up to Congress to write laws. Maybe the FDA, in this case.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's really bizarre the cops and bureaucrats apparently get to decide law to this extent.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.

In other words, they're doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?

They're replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.

I much prefer "bureaucrats" (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don't want a police officer deciding citizen's rights.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mind explaining your position?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm guessing they mean the DEA shouldn't both decide drug classification and enforce those same classifications.

That can be fixed by other means, though, such as by giving the FDA classification rights that the DEA then enforces. Killing Chevron deference would only make things worse; the court now gets to decide and enforce.

The flip side is that more progressive judges can also second guess decisions. EPA says that PFAS is fine and we're not going to regulate it? The court could step in on that. FCC says net neutrality doesn't need to exist? The court could step in on that.

Killing Chevron only makes sense for conservatives if they think they will own the courts indefinitely. They probably thought they would during the Trump Administration, but he lost the last election, and the Supreme Court massively overstepped with abortion rights and caused their side a whole bunch of new problems. They may not be so sure of their ability to capture the judicial system as they were a few years back. A lot depends on how the next election pans out.

[–] Space_Racer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It has some trade-offs, the same rules allow the DEA and ATF to make rules but also allows things like the EPA to function. It really is a double edged sword.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your comparison is EPA, so for drugs, a health issue, it should be a health agency. DEA is law enforcement. It’s letting cops decide policy when it should be an agency of subject matter experts writing evidenced-based policy.

[–] Space_Racer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm just saying it's the same rules that give them the power to decide on enforcement. Also all of them are enforcement agencies. The EPA does have federal agents that have the power to arrest. The EPA decided to have less cops in their agency because it is not the nature of their agency. The DEA and ATF decided to have more cops in their agencies because it is the nature of their agency.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a problem with their specific implementations rather than the rules that allow them to exist. I wonder if competent legislation could fix that.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah the main trade off is federal organizations have become so determinate that pretty soon, and it's come close already, they're just gonna support a dictator enable their internal politics.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This just isn't true. Federal agencies are made up of regular people who work a regular job for mediocre pay, and a dictator is much more likely to do away with that job (or even worse, as we've seen historically. Purges aren't just a fun way of saying "vacation").

Republicans have even said in the recent past (Rick Perry comes to mind, but pretty sure Trump has said similar) that they will do away with major regulatory agencies if they're elected (such as FDA, EPA, DOE, etc). What do you think happens to all of those workers when a Republican decides to shut down their agency? They're out of a job.

So no, they don't support it. They just don't really have any say in it either way.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You've never talked to a cop.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't give a fuck about cops.

The federal government is the largest employer in the US. What % of those do you think are cops?

[–] DrPop@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cops make up s very small percentage of government employees.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Doesn't matter, that was just an example. People get "institutionalized" in both government and corporate positions, the difference is the corporate ones have little power over the general public, next thing you know you have government representatives running around trying to make peoples lives hell for making clotted cream. If that sounds like a weird example, it is, definitely.

[–] Bitflip@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Criminalization is a multi-million dollar industry and greed is more powerful than our laws.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Million? Bro it's a 7.4 BILLION dollar industry.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hey if this happens does anyone know how this will affect drug testing for work? Employers are private entities obviously but a lot only drug test due to federal regulation or contract compliance.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I assume that companies would still drug test for weed. It's still a controlled substance with reclassification. They may be less likely to do so, but this wouldn't stop it from occurring.

This is why it's also important to ensure doctors can prescribed weed as a medicine. It forces companies to accept weed as a medical accommodation for most positions.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Even so, but for most non critical jobs, it really shouldn't be a problem if an employee smokes off the clock or not. They don't say shit when every office worker is sloshed from 5:30 onward.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

US health officials ask DEA to jeopardize their own jobs

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The DEA has basically ignored cannabis for years now. Opioids will keep them employed, don't worry.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly. They're basically asking them to do something the DEA can't do - change the law. What the DEA can do is prioritise what they're prosecuting and decriminalise weed, which they more or less unofficially have been doing for a few years now.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Abolish the DEA, legalize all drugs, and put education/treatment programs in place to help people. Repair lives instead of destroying them. That should always be the goal.