I'm not a person who would encourage marijuana (or other intoxicant) use, but the federal government should absolutely be letting the states set policy on that.
While this is not new policy (it only removes some conditions established by the previous administration) this is an example of the sort of federal overreach that real conservatives and libertarians reject.
For those who support heavy federal government involvement in healthcare and other social programs, this is an example of the downside of that approach.
Problem is, not all marijuana products are intoxicating, see cannabidiol (CBD) and industrial hemp. You could actively encourage CBD and hemp ropes use without also encouraging intoxication. Unfortunately, federal law treats CBDs on par with heroin. I've taken CBD when I threw out my back and I can attest the only affect it had on me was the reduced use of ibuprofen and reduced stomach irritation from the ibu.
The federal government is truly deranged when it comes to drug policy in general and marijuana specifically.
The involvement of law-enforcement and legal cannabis businesses is a different approach than government involvement in social programs. I think it’s unfortunate that they treat this as a criminal issue rather than as a public health concern.
Sessions doesn't want to lose one tool in his belt to use against black people. The root of this is refer madness from the last century, where white men thought marijuana would make white women sleep with black men.
I think your comment would be better if you started if off with "I truly believe that Sessions is racist and ..."
And while it may very much be true that he is, you lose influence with a large number of people by making the War on Drugs strictly about race.
Why would Sessions want to give up "tools" that help him oppress people, particularly those that disagree with all the BS policy in place and being instituted?
Race does play a huge part, BUT I don't think it's all about race, I think part of it's also about the elites vs poor... elites always have access to drugs without enforcement when they choose or want it.
Poor people are the ones hurt most by drug use/abuse the ones put in jail/etc.. it just so happens poverty is higher among minorities and so it does affect the black population more...
From a party-line standpoint this has almost always benefited Republicans (hurt minorities) because majority of minorities vote Blue.
Thankfully he's allowing U.S. attorneys to make the decision and HOPEFULLY most of those will make better choices on how to prosecute or NOT prosecute legal marijuana sales.
Yes, this is mainly about classism where race is but one component in establishing class. Medical care, education, justice are not rights in Conservatism, they are products. And classism ensures that elites get better access to those products because they can pay for more or better versions of them. Attacking decent cheap products, can make them more expensive and exotic and thus in the hands of mainly elites; or it can remove them from the market entirely leaving only the more expensive established products, again mainly in the hands of elites.
No doubt. I read this article upon waking and honestly, the destruction of lives that will take place if Sessions moves ahead with his bullshit is very upsetting to me.
From John Ehrlichman, counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon:
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
This only makes it even less appropriate than that comment and the OP.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
You should note that that is from the "What to submit" section, which has no bearing on comments. In that regard this whole submission may be off-topic, but comments on a submission are inherently on-topic.
But also see:
Please don't complain that a submission is
inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag
it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag
them instead. If you flag something, please don't also
comment that you did.
We can, but explaining the reasons for wanting a downvote would help. The war on drugs certainly has been a tool for racial oppression, and Sessions has expressed support for folks who back anti-miscegenation laws, so it seems like it's not a necessarily untrue statement.
I didn't realize that. Thanks for the information!
[edit] I spoke too soon. When clicking on the timestamp I am brought to a view showing the comment but I don't have an option to flag. Perhaps that still requires a minimum rep?
Possibly. I don't recall when I first noticed it and I hit the downvote karma threshold a few years ago so there's a good chance they're accessible at the same time.
While this is not new policy (it only removes some conditions established by the previous administration) this is an example of the sort of federal overreach that real conservatives and libertarians reject.
For those who support heavy federal government involvement in healthcare and other social programs, this is an example of the downside of that approach.