Here is the Democracy Now story covering Biden's announcement that he is pardoning all simple possession drug offenses. "President Joe Biden announced Thursday that he is pardoning everyone convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law, and said the classification of the drug would undergo review. The move will remove many legal barriers for thousands of people to gain jobs, housing, college admission and federal benefits, and fulfills a campaign pledge made by Biden. However, the pardons will only affect about 6,500 people, as the vast majority of drug charges are at the state level and are disproportionately affecting communities of color."

https://www.democracynow...imple_possession_federal

Amy Goodman interviews Kassandra Frederique with Drug Policy Alliance which is a non profit advocating for ending the war on drugs and prohibition. DPA advocates for Joe Biden to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis and to take it off of the controlled substances list.

I'm going to link a statement linked in the transcripts; by Jane Shim, the senior policy attorney for the Immigrant Defense Project so that you can also read her piece on this since Biden's Pardon goes out of it's way to exclude undocumented immigrants.

https://www.immigrantdef...otections-to-immigrants/

KASSANDRA FREDERIQUE: "So, what we have found is that there are not that many people, IF ANY people, that are currently in the federal system currently solely for simple possession."


So who will this free if anyone? Cannabis should be de-scheduled or re-scheduled first, then deal with freeing the nonviolent Cannabis "offenders".

It's not just people being freed, it's people losing the record they have.

Biden also called on Governors to do the same, which is a bigger thing. Some have followed suit. Mine showed his colors and lied a "no".

There's also the look into re-scheduling.

Ya, it's symbolic as to the pardons, really. However, that will give the state legalizations on the ballot this year a boost.

Ya, the re-schedulng should have been done years ago. However, it wasn't and at least he's starting it now.

Not a huge gift from Biden, but a gift nonetheless.

Sounds great. In reality it is nothing but hot air and positive media coverage. Biden helped to pass the 1994 Crime Bill that locked up people for life for petty (non violent) drug crimes. Kamala did the same in CA, locking up around 2,000 non violent Cannabis "offenders" even though it was known and even flaunted to the media that Kamala smoked Cannabis quite a bit. Now Biden is attempting at some good PR by saying things he cannot or will not deliver upon. Biden has no power to demand anything from Governors. The linked article above noted that there are very few, if any people that Biden's proposal will actually help. Biden is attempting a magic trick. Pass bills your whole career that lock people for non violent drug crimes, become President, pass a bill that lets some of the people you locked up out of jail, look like a Hero for the media. There are dozens of images and video floating around of his son Hunter smoking crack, weighing crack on a scale, etc. There is even a video of Hunter smoking crack while in a drug detox and rehab facility. Why has Hunter never been charged or arrested for any of this multiple drug crimes? Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Kamala Harris, none of these are people worthy of trust.

This meme seems to sum up the actual reality nicely.


Joe Biden Gives Anti-Crack Crime Bill Speech while Hunter Smokes Crack
https://rumble.com/vkepch-side-b...biden-gives-anti-cr.html

I will be happy to apologize and say that I was wrong IF Biden actually does something good for the Cannabis using community, but I am not holding my breath... and neither should anyone else.

And right at the same time, some igneramous with power in the UK is pushing to have cannabis changed to a class A prohibited substance.

I appreciate your passion, however no one is perfect, people make mistakes, and people are allowed to change. For most people, the people and thinking around them influences their decisions and actions. Since change is constant, those things change over time too, and as such people change their minds.


One love

In my state, the Republican General Assembly refused to vote on an initiated statute petitiion to legalize recreationally. Further signatures gathered would put it on the ballot for the voters, so then they challenged the petition itself, tying it up in legal challenges to force it into the next election cycle (2023). My Republican Governor has said that he will veto any legalization bill passed.

On the national level,at least three Marijuana legalization bills have been passed in the Dem House and shelved by the Republican Senate. Now that the Dems control the Senate, a legalization bill will get a vote. Simply take a look at the result of that vote to see which party is your best shot at legalization.

I'm sure that party specific politics won't go over well here. I'll just say that I have problems with the Dems as well, but it's pretty obvious if you pay attention which party gives the best chance at Marijuana legalization.

brokedownpalace. I have been a part of the legalize/deschedule Cannabis movement for over 30 years. BOTH political sides suck and both are wholly dependent upon Big Pharma$$$$, actually they are ALL addicted to it. No one on either political side will vote against it because their single biggest donor will dry up. Big Pharma$$$$ is the single biggest obstacle to legal Cannabis and they OWN A-L-L political sides, left right and middle. Who is the single largest political donor, dwarfing all other donors? BP$$$$. Who is the single largest commercial sponsor of Television and Radio programs? BP$$$$.

I naively voted for Obama because he seemed the best opportunity to legalize Cannabis as he has openly smoked it in the past. As soon as he was POTUS there was a huge Fed crackdown for Cannabis. Legal dispensaries were being raided left and right. More and more people were being jailed and having their lives ruined just for Cannabis. Obama like many others on both sides of the aisle sold his soul to BP$$$$. We all need to get over the Left-Right illusion. We only have a Uniparty now and have for many decades, the rest is illusion, Political Kabuki Theater.

Mitakuye: That is exactly how I agree with you regarding corporate Democrats. Campaign financing is the rot which has put large corporations and donors ahead of American citizens for decades. Neo-liberals are bought and paid for.

However, the politicians still need votes, at least for now. Simply looking at what has been done by each party lately shows that the Dems are the party most likely to, grudgingly, legalize Marijuana.

I have smoked Marijuana on and off for 50 years now and have of course followed and contributed to legalization efforts. I've followed the legalization efforts at the state level and now that it has reached my state, I have followed that effort very closely. I have contacted most of the politicians I vote for and have had direct conversations with two of the people running for my state’s General Assembly.

I can tell you that even the lip service paid to legalizing by the Dems is leagues ahead of the responses I got from Republicans and infinitely better than how things used to be. Biden’s largely symbolic pardon is progress.

Pot is nearer to legalization than it ever was. I can drive for a few hours in three different directions and be in a state where I can walk into a store and buy it. I know that if Marijuana is completely legalized in my lifetime, it will be done by the people, at the state level. However, from everything I’ve seen, one party will accept legalization (no matter how grudgingly) and try to turn it into votes while the other will actively fight it.

Sure, the Dems will weasel and try to sit on this fearing political backlash in votes and contributions. The other party, however, is actively working to subvert the will of the people. In my state I just watched the Republicans lie to reject a petition, knowing that they could dishonestly use the courts to kill a referendum from the people.

Yep, the Dems are hemming and hawing and trying to play both sides to appease their donors. However, it’s a simple fact that I would be voting to legalize in less than a month were it not for Republicans in my state. There are many, similar, recent examples.

I’ll take lip service and call it good publicity. It beats actively and openly working against the will of the people.

Now, how many people actually are involved in this "act of mercy"?

As Biden's writers won't state it, I'll do it for you:

0

Why?

Simple possession IS NOT A FEDERAL CRIME.

As far as my judicial knowledge goes, simple possession is regulated by each state individually.

He is holding you for fools, that's what he's doing.

I'm not sure this is accurate.

https://www.justice.gov/...ed-federal-drug-statutes



One love

This, of course, is a preposterous statement. It makes you feel better about your own marginalization and inability to process complex social issues, but there isn't a shred of truth to it (as is obvious, I think, to most everyone with eyes and ears who aren't engaging in propaganda). It is utterly unsurprising from someone who repeatedly lobbied at the height of the pandemic for others to treat their COVID symptoms with horse de-wormer and fish tank cleaner, so to others I would say consider the source before entertaining absurd comparisons with no basis in fact or reality.

The truth is that the left and right (in this country and elsewhere) could not be any more different. One side is pushing democracy and representative governance (flawed as it may be), while the other works to dismantle it in favor of authoritarian rule. The two sides are diametrically opposed on nearly every major issue, as well as in their core beliefs and fundamental mission statements. There is, in fact, almost no point at which they intersect, so your statement, beyond being a transparently self-serving justification of your own ignorance and lack of engagement, is just flat out wrong.

One side is the party of grievance, empty headed culture war and violent insurrection; the other one is not. One believes in climate change and defers to objective fact; the other claims it's all a hoax and works to enact public policy guaranteed to hasten our extinction. One believes in free and fair elections; the other seeks to end them. One considers immigrants, people of color and the LGBTQ community to be subhuman parasites undeserving of rights and resources; the other side fights for greater equity (and, I would argue, basic human decency). One seeks an end to women's bodily autonomy and healthcare; the other works to defend it against a craven, politicized judiciary. One considers the rights of gun owners to be sacrosanct and untouchable; the other finds this completely insane and out of touch with the modern world. One party stands for white supremacist Christofascism, while the other finds this utterly repugnant and unacceptable in a civilized society.

I could really go on and on all day, but I'd have more luck convincing my dog. She's a more astute critical thinker.

But here is something new for you to be enraged about today. It's the kind of hard hitting social issue that politically astute geniuses like yourself can really sink your teeth into. I suggest you make it your mission to educate the masses online about this disturbing liberal scourge:

https://www.nbcnews.com/...-talking-point-rcna51439

I find this rather unfair way to carry a discussion. Arguments regarding this issue should be treated as they stand.

Sorry you feel that way. I think I responded to his knucklehead statement in fairly exhaustive detail.

I also called him out for repeatedly spreading potentially deadly COVID misinformation.

Because that's what he did.

Edit: It is also impossible to separate horse de-wormer enthusiasts from their politics. So yeah, I think it’s a fair point to bring up in response to his little rant.

Personal insults are the last ditch effort of an opponent who known they have lost the argument. Lots of assumptions, lots of accusations, lots of insults, yet no facts or evidence.

Instead of posting links to the copious amounts of scientific data proving Ivermectin saved lives during the pandemic and its benefits at fighting the Couf virus, and I'll just let everyone who is actually interested in truth and scientific evidence do the research for themselves.

It is also best for any interested individuals to do their own research on the Uniparty's agenda and the voting records of whatever illusory political side your chosen congress critters claim to be on instead of blindly trusting me or Cipher.

Some people cannot see through the illusion. Others can see the illusion, but can never admit to others that there is an illusion. Some people cling to the illusion and to false assumptions and outright lies like a well-worn pacifier or snuggly blanket.

Bottom line: don't believe me, or the other guy. Always do your own research.

BTW, since when were mods allowed to spread crazy conspiracy theories?

Personally Id prefer if political topics stay off this forum or if they are kept separate from the rest (and hidden like the Through the looking glass subforum). We used to have a political subforum but it seems it has been removed, I´ve not been as active lately so I don´t remember or didn´t see when it was removed.

Regarding Bill Cipher´s post: Bill has for years granted an exemption from the forum´s attitude (as you can see in the note at the bottom of the attitude page) because he has been as our watchdog, that whenever a troll would come in the forum, like a know-it-all pseudo-shaman trying to proselytize, and when our more calm attempts would fail, Bill would be unleashed and tell the truth with no compromise. All other mods including myself have always needed to abide by the attitude

That being said, Bill has been very active politically lately, and at the same time thankfully we have not been having many trolls, so it seems Bill has focused (apart from his awesome art) on these political discussions.

Personally, I don´t agree with his political views and I think his harshness has been disproportionate here. But he has been given that exemption so he´s acting according to our old agreement. I will discuss with the mods about it, see what is the best solution, if political discussions are to be totally gone from the forum in general, or if Bill´s exemption should not include politics, or if we keep it as is, or whatever other solution.

I would not like to make the situation warmer than it is but what I ask myself is: are you satisfied with the two-party system? Looking at it from a third person perspective, I don't consider it very democratic. In a country that is overflowing with ideas like the US, new parties might come up with brilliant new ideas. In this way everything is really limiting, one party is always and only the antithesis of the other...

I suspected that there were such rules from what I have seen of the forum. If I may, let me bring up two points. Just my experience, call me devil's advocate.

1. It's going to be very hard, likely impossible, to have any threads on the legalization of any drugs without being political. Following what politicians have done on the subject is tied to the subject necessarily. The OP in this thread is actually political and it's realistically only been a matter of degree since. And...

2. Number two is related to one. I have seen politics banned on a few forums I am on. Politics nearly destroyed a (tobacco) pipe forum I used to frequent. Problem is that, in our current political climate, there are those on both ends of the spectrum that are straining at the bit to get their views online. They will weasel discussion in that direction no matter the subject.

We have even seen a pandemic turn into something where you could tell a persons party from their views on it.

I'm not saying that it's impossible. I will say that the only way they (mostly) got politics off the pipe forum was to hand out warning at the slightest hint of them for a while. Otherwise, things always went south eventually.

There was also a necessary detour into the mods and owner of the board examining their own political view's influence on their decisions as to what posts they let slide. That particular forum is recovering with new members, but they lost a significant number of the old.

Anyway, thanks for putting up with the ramblings of an unkempt mind. This is a great forum and I will definitely follow any direction given me. I wouldn't want to lose the fun of this forum as well.

I think it would be better if political discussion was kept away from the nexus. We've seen enough of it, people seem to never change their positions, it rarely leads anywhere.

That's easier said than done though - one can't really cover drugs, or a subset thereof, without touching on politics as well.

As long as politics are not a banned topic though, i think it's only right to hear different views. Personally i find it refreshing that Bill Cipher takes these stances so clearly. It has saved me from having to indulge in political discussion more than once. I don't always agree but often it's the same things i would say if i were to voice my opinion.

One thing people on the right are really good at, is ridiculing "snowflake" mentality while exhibiting it themselves. Like, they'll call everyone not agreeing with them brainwashed and unable to think for themselves, yet be offended when we don't take their word for things that clearly need (and lack) evidence. They're offended to be occasionally called nazis (understandable) but don't hesitate to call others communists (intended as the opposite equivalent). They strawman the heck out of everything, but complain when it's done to one of their talking points.

And don't get me started on the religious zealot types. They don't see anything wrong with calling people "of satan" or whatever, but are deeply offended when their holy books are called fairy tales. Respect is a two way street. You can't get it (from me) unless you give it, too. That's not only about how you say things, but also about the things you say. If you can't wrap your head around that i'm as firm in my beliefs as you are in yours, it's really not my fault. If you trample on my core values, don't be surprised if i kick yours.

Sry for going on a tangent there :-)

While i agree that Bill does chose a pretty confrontative style at times, i'm glad he's here to make the points he does. And i'm not convinced that making them softer would change much.

It clearly is an absurd statement that there's no difference between left and right. There are topics where it seems like they're the same - eg. giving all the money to the military industrial complex. Then there's other topics, like the ones Bill has pointed out, where the differences couldn't be more obvious.

As an inhabitant and citizen of a country where there's over a dozen parties, four of which have seats in the federal council (which serves about the same function as a single president or prime minister does in other countries), i find a two party system very unappealing. There is much more than two angles from which the world can be viewed. Even here, for some topics there doesn't seem to be diversity among politicians because lobbying is too successful (or public opinion polling suggests to keep dissent to themselves). Even here, there isn't a party that i would join. The right ones aren't an option because i'm way not on the right, and the left ones either don't go far enough, or they go too far in the wrong ways for my taste, or they prioritise things very differently than i would.

In the case of potential covid remedies, a) anyone who's not a medical professional should keep their mouths shut according to the attitude, and b) otherwise that not only constitutes medical advice, it's also potentially really dangerous. One could argue that both from an attitude and from a harm reduction standpoint, mods absolutely should intervene. When someone pushes alternative treatments, but also when someone says that any and all doubts about any vaccine are a priori irrational.

People should just never give medical advice, at least when it's unrelated to psychedelics. And preface ideological stuff with some mark that lets everyone know that they're aware it's basically an opinion.

The meme was quite funny btw.

Obviously Biden and Harris were both involved in making things around drugs as bad as they are, and it does seem ironic that he should be the one credited now.

I'm not clairvoyant, idk if it's just for popularity or if it's actually that Biden is trying to right some of his past wrongs. Both options are within the realm of possibility, i think.

And yeah it doesn't go far enough. But it is a step, and he is the one taking it. Clinton could have. Bush could have. Obama could have. Trump could have. None of them did. So whatever the motivation, it is a noteworthy thing. I hope it gets the ball rolling much more, but it's probably healthy to remain skeptical until it does.