politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The rare W from 47
Please help me understand how this is remotely a W. They are never going to willingly give people good things that make life better.
It is a W, it'd be more of a W if they hadn't completely fucked grants and medical research funding. The truth is that it's insane what the medical community has to do to research the medical viability of something that was ruled to have no medical viability, despite at the time it was scheduled showing promise and continuing to show promise outside of the states and in the medical studies that have bent over backwards to follow the rules.
Psychedelics were once viewed as one of the most promising breakthroughs in mental health treatment and because of Nixon and Regan and their racist war on drugs, that legacy has been kicked down the road.
I'll concede that it's a minor w, in a sea of shit, piss, and blood. But I'm gonna count my blessings.
It's too bad this maladministration is cutting scientific research funding so deeply, so not sure how much any research is going to happen, including this, but....I remain hopeful, I guess.
How is it not?
This isn't making it legal at all. This is reducing restrictions on research.
Even under the absolutely fucking absurd peak of the "War on Drugs", I remember applying to a marijuana research study as a test subject. I didn't get in - they had a battery of questions up front and I assume something I answered there resulted in rejection, but I knew another student that did it.
Given it was Schedule 1, I'm sure there was not nearly enough, but I guess it still did happen.
I asked you, after you stated it’s “a W,” to help me understand your thinking. I’ve already given reasons why I think this is neutral at best.
Why do you consider this to be a good thing, after what you’ve seen them do to “science” and “health?”
Come now, it's better. Just as breakbone fever is better than malaria. Our country has been permanently seized by gangsters. And your countries are next. Which is not better. We are doomed, doomed I tell you. Unless we organize obviously.
Yes, I did read your comment before replying to it. You explained nothing. I don't know how to explain how legalization of readily available an inexpensive methods that have been proven to treat mental illnesses for decades being even considered for legalization is obviously a W.
Can you help me understand how you got to “legalization?”
It's in the article:
I'm not sure what other way you could interpret that.
Oh ok well if it’s in the article, that must mean MAGA will just do a great job
Thanks for pointing that out
Of course it doesn't mean that, that's why I didn't say that.
I still don’t get “the W”
I'm sorry, I don't know how to help you.
I was thinking the same. Clearly not a “W,” just a distraction to get the MLM bros back in the fold. This has zero to do with legalization