I should clarify: laws that have actually passed.
Yet even so, you point to the edge-case exceptions while I point to the norm. For example, preceding the States Reform Act, Democrats beat them to the punch with the MORE Act, so your point is of such low-hanging fruit and the biggest exception – NOT TO MENTION – it literally won’t be brought to the floor for a vote thanks to none other than ® Mike Johnson…
… So your point?
Also, did you forget this? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/
Today, I am announcing three steps that I am taking to end this failed approach.
First, I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana. I have directed the Attorney General to develop an administrative process for the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible individuals. There are thousands of people who have prior Federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions.
Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.
Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances. This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.
In effect, Biden has de-facto decriminalized Marijuana. Let me know if he prosecutes marijuana possession in legal states.
I should clarify: laws that have actually passed.
Yes, when writing lengthy posts arguing semantics you should be clear and specify what you’re talking about.
You meant what you said, you just assumed and were called out.
You play more hopscotch with reading than my daughter at the playground, lol.
Even if I did, it changes fundamentally nothing about the overarching conclusion. This isn’t the gotcha you seem to believe it is. So says Confucius, when the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.
Quit looking at pixels; look at the big picture.
Even if I did, it changes fundamentally nothing about the overarching conclusion.
You’re clearly the bad faith poster here.
You’re already in the thick of it but this guy is peak debatelord, he is really not worth engaging unless you feel like counting arguments like they’re points in a game.
Having actual, valid points instead of just vibes and twitter quips is debatelord?
