• geekwithsoul
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    It definitely needs to be decriminalized but that’ll actually take an act of Congress. Public pressure needs to be applied but let’s not pretend Biden can do this on his own

        • PhlubbaDubba
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          How dare a prosecutor of the law checks notes prosecute the law!

          She’s done some scummy stuff as a DA but blaming her for what laws she’s legally required to enforce is just idiotic

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              2 months ago

              In my opinion, they are wrong to do so. Prosecutors are public servants, not policymakers. The legislative organ makes the rules, the prosecutors enforce them. If you’re okay with this then you’re okay with giving prosecutors the power to arbitrarily decide which laws they want to enforce and which they don’t.

              There is a reason why there is a strict separation in duties between the different organs of state.

              • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Well that is where the crossroads of discretion and duty to prosecute intersect. Technically the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute all cognizable offenses under law, but in the interest of justice may dismiss any such cases. My argument is that a prosecutor who genuinely believed that prosecuting an offense was contrary to the interest of justice, they would have the option and arguably be compeled to dismiss such cases as shown above.

                • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  “Interest of justice” is being used as an excuse for refusing to enforce laws they don’t agree with in that given example. “Contrary to the interest of justice” is always going to be a squishy term, but calling a blanket refusal to prosecute something that the legislature has decided to criminalise is, in my opinion, not an exercise of discretion but an abuse of it and willing dereliction of duty.

            • PhlubbaDubba
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              1, sex work, not prostitution, and 2, that’s 100% true, but it’s not anyone’s duty to literally defy the terms of their job for what they might or might not personally think is morally correct, and expecting that of someone is extremely unfair.

              Not everyone can or should have to do the extraordinary to be an agent that can be trusted to work for change when put into the right context or when they personally feel ready to stand up.

              A church is built to thank the martyrs, not built by the martyrs.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Should Kim Davis have shut the fuck up and done her job to issue marriage licenses regardless of her own feelings on the subject?

          Crazy how the “just do your job” crowd gets real quiet on this subject.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      It definitely needs to be decriminalized but that’ll actually take an act of Congress

      There’s other ways to try, Biden just won’t.

      Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.

      https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

      But the House passed a bill to deschedule in 2022, and Biden’s whole deal in the last primary was how well he could get Republican senators on board with Dem legislation.

      He couldn’t.

      But going back full circle:

      Why did Biden promise to deschedule if there’s no way he can deschedule?

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wait, but he did the things you mentioned in the first part. That doesn’t fit with “but he won’t”.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        To the full-circle thing, I’m not sure what the point is. There was no explicit deadline. Promises by politicians to assert their position have been used since forever. It doesn’t change the fact there are obstructions to their good intentions. If I promise something and someone blocks me from viably pursuing it, that’s not on me, that’s on them: Republicans.

        And if they approach it the wrong way, as quoted material suggests, it risks being thrown out by the conservative court making future attempts possibly more difficult.

        • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          If I promise something and someone blocks me from viably pursuing it, that’s not on me, that’s on them: Republicans.

          If I promise my kid a trip to their favorite amusement park and then don’t get the big bonus I expected from work to afford it, it’s not my jobs fault the kid didn’t go to the park. It’s my fault for making a promise and not finding a way to follow through.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            If I promise my kid a trip to their favorite amusement park and then don’t get to go because Republicans blew up every bridge along the way to the amusement park, which also flooded because of Climate Change, then that’s on Republicans, not me.

            • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Nice stealth edit, because you realize what you say is ridiculous.

              You’re borderline obsessed with a boogie man. Take some personal accountability.

              If you want to use your example that’d be like knowing those bridges were scheduled for demolition, and still promising to drive over them the next day anyway.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Stealth edit? Sorry, I corrected a typo. What did you think I did? LOL.

                Like knowing those bridges were scheduled for demolition,

                Except in your terrible analogy, this is amplifying momentum for people to vote, which could’ve inevitably changed the outcome of who controlled the House and Senate. Therefore, Biden couldn’t have predicted those bridges to be blown up because it was quite possibly people would make the sensible choice and not put these demolitionists back in Congress.

                Republicans have nothing. You will lose.

                • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Biden couldn’t have predicted those bridges to be blown up because it was quite possibly people would make the sensible choice and not put these demolitionists back in Congress.

                  If he ignored the entire history of the party and voting base. Why is it not his own fault for being able to understand that water is wet?

                  • lennybird@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Are you really that upset that Biden made a promise that he can’t keep because Republicans blocked him? The key point in all this is understanding what his intentions are. He laid out his intentions; if he wasn’t serious, then he probably wouldn’t have advised the DOJ to not prosecute marijuana offenders, or pardon them, huh?

                    lol.

                    Republicans have nothing. Trump is going to prison. You will lose.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      2 months ago

      He definitely over promised on the schedule 2 reclass; because of the congressionally mandated process for reclassification, it takes about 9 years from formal proposal to the DEA being allowed to reschedule.