Marijuana is less harmful and less prone to abuse than first thought and should be reclassified to reflect that, the Department of Health and Human Services now says.
It has some trade-offs, the same rules allow the DEA and ATF to make rules but also allows things like the EPA to function. It really is a double edged sword.
Yeah the main trade off is federal organizations have become so determinate that pretty soon, and it’s come close already, they’re just gonna support a dictator enable their internal politics.
This just isn’t true. Federal agencies are made up of regular people who work a regular job for mediocre pay, and a dictator is much more likely to do away with that job (or even worse, as we’ve seen historically. Purges aren’t just a fun way of saying “vacation”).
Republicans have even said in the recent past (Rick Perry comes to mind, but pretty sure Trump has said similar) that they will do away with major regulatory agencies if they’re elected (such as FDA, EPA, DOE, etc). What do you think happens to all of those workers when a Republican decides to shut down their agency? They’re out of a job.
So no, they don’t support it. They just don’t really have any say in it either way.
Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.
In other words, they’re doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?
They’re replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.
I much prefer “bureaucrats” (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.
good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don’t want a police officer deciding citizen’s rights.
It’s really bizarre the cops and bureaucrats apparently get to decide law to this extent.
It has some trade-offs, the same rules allow the DEA and ATF to make rules but also allows things like the EPA to function. It really is a double edged sword.
Yeah the main trade off is federal organizations have become so determinate that pretty soon, and it’s come close already, they’re just gonna support a dictator enable their internal politics.
This just isn’t true. Federal agencies are made up of regular people who work a regular job for mediocre pay, and a dictator is much more likely to do away with that job (or even worse, as we’ve seen historically. Purges aren’t just a fun way of saying “vacation”).
Republicans have even said in the recent past (Rick Perry comes to mind, but pretty sure Trump has said similar) that they will do away with major regulatory agencies if they’re elected (such as FDA, EPA, DOE, etc). What do you think happens to all of those workers when a Republican decides to shut down their agency? They’re out of a job.
So no, they don’t support it. They just don’t really have any say in it either way.
You’ve never talked to a cop.
Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.
In other words, they’re doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?
They’re replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.
I much prefer “bureaucrats” (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.
good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don’t want a police officer deciding citizen’s rights.
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mind explaining your position?