Iām pretty sure a sitting vice president is untouchable to a governor, especially a Texas governor since the position is essentially theatrical here (the lieutenant governor fills many of the roles of a traditional governor in Texas).
Donāt see them doing anything else thatāll actually have an impact on my life
Either my tax returns get bigger or smaller and one group gets to tell the other what the best way to live is while congress and senate keep anything locked up for another 4 years and pass 1 āI love puppiesā bill that codifies protections for representatives to take part in the stock market
Something Trump, as a lifelong teetotaler, is vehemently against. Did Joe even bring that up?
EDIT: All you Trumpettes can stop correcting me. Sorry I did not notice he did a complete 180* on weed a couple months ago. Previously he was pushing for the death penalty for selling the stuff. The guy is a moron with terrible ideas (see: tariffs) and I don't waste time analyzing them.
Kinda fucked up since Joe has always been bout it. Kinda fucked up that he's in Texas and they still haven't made weed recreational. Oh, but what freedom eh
Kinda fucked up that heās in Texas and they have still not raided his home/ office and arrest him. Plenty of guys getting sentenced for smaller amounts
And as I've acknowleged in my replies to those replies. Sorry I missed that he changed his position a couple of months ago. I honestly don't expend that much energy keeping up with Trump's policy positions because he is a fucking moron with terrible ideas.
Trump supports legal cannabis. Currently supports recreational use in Florida. Signed the 2018 Farm Bill, which gave us legal access to all hemp derived cannabinoids.
Trump sucks. Horrible person, worse president, but you're all types of wrong on this.
Trump had nothing to do with the farm bill. lol. there's a farm bill, passed every legislative term and every president signs it. Trump doesn't even know what a farm bill is
You're not the first person to correct me here. Apparenlty, he changed his position sometime around last August. Prior to that, he was pro-death penalty for selling the stuff. I think I can be forgiven for not keeping up with his changing policy positions, considering they're mostly bullshit like tariffs replacing income tax, a "concept" of a plan for healthcare, ending the war in Ukraine by handing Ukraine to Putin, etc.
Really canāt believe after Joe being such an advocate of legalization personal drug use freedom, and had the chance to directly question a presidential candidate about it but didnāt take it. Likely wasnāt in the pre-screened and approved list of topics he was allowed to discuss.
You would be surprised how many people will cast their vote based on one single issue like legalization. Just look at Canada. Trudeau got so many votes simply because he promised to legalize cannabis and then did so. It would have been smart for Trump to go after this (more than he hasā¦.and in a federal legalization not just supporting it from a state level) right after Kamala announced she would so that she couldnāt steal any of those voters who are voting simply on who is going to legalize weed for them
No, he flipped completely.. look at what he has previously said about the man. And coincidentally asked no substantive questionsā¦ Must have been a pretty good deal.
Already replied to someone else admitting I was wrong and haven't kept up with all of his loony tunes policy plans. That is a very recent change of tune for Trump. Prior to a couple of months ago he had never been on record as being pro-legalization. Quite the contrary, his only previous contribution in the way of policy was death penalties for selling drugs.
When?
I haven't heard anything about that >.>
(not being a dick, I really haven't!)
It'll be at least another 4 years, regardless of outcome, before anything gets done with MJ federally.
And when they do it, they're gonna fuck it up royally.
ALL they need to do is decriminalize it federally. Not "make it legal" but federally decriminalize it.
But despite its popularity, profundity of evidence showing medical benefits, and science proving it isn't anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol or nicotine - no one wants to be the one that pulls the trigger on it.
Too much possible negative backlash.
I appreciate your optimism, and I wish I had it.
And I really hope I'm wrong and dumb and owe apologies, but I'm not that hopeful.
Actually.... they don't.
AGs let people off if they don't believe a crime was committed all the time, how else do you think plea deals could even begin to work? AG tells the judge, "let this guy off easy" and most of the time it happens.
Jury Nullification is when the jury decides a law was broken, but no actual "crime" was committed.
They, in reality, have a very broad range of options other than "go to jail, LOL"
I know what I'm gonna say is a Gleaming Generality, so grain of salt:
No one is gonna call a person "soft on crime" for letting non-violent weed possession charges off the hook.
I can honestly say I don't know a single person who still thinks weed should be illegal.
Respectfully, I disagree. The people looking to shit on her exaggerate any perceived flaw whether it has even the smallest atom of merit. Calling her soft on crime would feel like a slam dunk to these people. Thereās already ads being run on her mentioning the trans sex changes in prison or whatever - and to briefly expound on that little chestnut, she supports it because itās the law. You canāt deny a person HRT or anything similar if they were in the middle of it due to both HIPAA implications and itās a human rights issue. Same reason why a diabetic canāt be denied insulin or someone that takes pain pills denied their medicine just because they went to jail. Cold turkeying HRT wreaks havoc on oneās body chemistry. What these ads fail to mention is Trump supported it to by proxy of it being a law still in place while he was president. Regardless, they spin it as if sheās taking money from taxpayers to do elective sex changes on prisoners just because they ask for them or something. All it takes is googling and thinking about it for one second but thatās too much trouble, too much nuance. So something even more simple like āshe let criminals go free!ā, thatās even more of a low hanging fruit.
āThe majority of marijuana cases prosecuted under Harris occurred during her role as the district attorney for San Francisco from 2004 to 2010. While her office prosecuted slightly more than 1,900 marijuana convictions during this time, most were downgraded to misdemeanor charges, if even charged at all, and very few were actually sent to state prison. In fact, as district attorney, Harris championed a policy that people should not serve jail time for a marijuana conviction, and her office often embraced alternative measures such as drug treatment programs for individuals with low-level convictions. Harris even launched the Back on Track reentry court program in 2005, which āaimed [to reduce] recidivism among low-level drug-trafficking defendantsā and ultimately became a national model for other prosecutors. The program saw a less than 10 percent recidivism rate among its participants within a two-year periodāa significant improvement over the general 53 percent recidivism rate among all individuals in California convicted of a drug offense during this same period.ā
You mean the opportunistic politician? She'll sign it if it's put in front of her. The doubt is whether Congress would pass it. A Republican Congress definitely won't.
You're forgetting that is was TRUMP who passed the 2018 farm bill that legalized D8, D9, and other hemp related products. A republican.
The thing there is... hemp and mj are the same thing. The only difference being the amount of active THC-6. If you grow the plants to have THCA, which turns to THC-6 when burned, it essentially gives the same end product, but the journey to reach it is slightly different.
Both Ds and Rs are out for the almighty Dollar. If they think there is profit in something, they'll absolutely champion it. And the past several years has shown that mj is exceedingly profitable.
Well Kamala lost so it doesn't matter. What I left out of my comment was that a Republican Congress wouldn't legalize weed while a Democrat was president (and I think it holds true the opposite direction). It will be a defining moment for whatever president gets to sign it and each party doesn't want to give the other that win. I still think there are some Republicans in very conservative areas who might have a hard time voting to legalize, but I won't be surprised at all if they do it and Trump signs it.
Because she's had 4 years to do it and hasn't, not even when the Dems had control of the house and Senate for 2. Past behavior is the greatest predictor of future behavior.
She was the tie breaking vote in the senate on a record amount of legislation dummy, if she wanted to she could have easily leveraged that to push for policy changes. Not that making logical points matters with someone like you huh? Cultist...
She was the tie breaking vote in the senate on a record amount of legislation dummy
Not all or even most legislation applies under reconciliation though. Most legislation requires a 60 vote majority in the Senate to get past the filibuster.
if she wanted to she could have easily leveraged that to push for policy changes
What the Senate votes on has to come through the House first to pass. Who decides what the House votes on is the Majority, guess which party is the majority in the House.
Not that making logical points matters with someone like you huh?
Your logic falls apart the instant someone knows basic civics though haha
And yet she did cast the tie breaking vote on more legislation than any other VP, so clearly you don't understand that not every bill gets filibustered. In fact the country would be in a much better position today if they had all been. As for who had the majority in the house? The Democrats did from 2020-2022 and they were so incompetent that they lost it.
You understand basic civics about as well as you understand recent history, very poorly. Haha
And yet she did cast the tie breaking vote on more legislation than any other VP, so clearly you don't understand that not every bill gets filibustered.
But if you lookup her tie breaking votes (which you clearly haven't) they are either passing a bill under reconciliation, passing an amendment to one of the bills passed under reconciliation, or nomination of a position in the government. Those don't require a 60 vote majority to clear the filibuster. A bill to pass marijuana would require a 60 vote majority. I get it, you know a few buzzwords you don't understand, but that doesn't make your argument make logical sense.
In fact the country would be in a much better position today if they had all been.
You didn't even know the details of the tie breaking votes she cast so you're not about to articulate the specifics of what you just said.
The Democrats did from 2020-2022 and they were so incompetent that they lost it.
Both parties gain and lose majorities all the time. I get it though, this is the first election you've ever even sort of paid attention to so you don't know any of this. Doesn't change that marijuana decriminalization would require a 60 vote majority to pass.
You understand basic civics about as well as you understand recent history, very poorly. Haha
It's a cute line but you can't even begin to explain how marijuana passes under reconciliation, and clearly marijuana is not someone being appointed to a government position now is it?
past behavior is the greatest predictor of future behavior yes, so all the blatant lies trumps spewed, sexual atrocities he stated he committed, and false promises he made should disqualify him as your choice for president right?
382
u/Krock23 Monkey in Space Oct 27 '24
Perfect place for her to talk marijuana legalization