Yeah my understanding is that since HHS said “the science suggests it should be in 3,” the DEA would have a bit of a challenge making any other rule. The schedules (theoretically) tell you what the addiction risk and medical value of a substance is, with lower risk & more effective medicine being the least restricted. So since HHS made that determination and the DEA are not scientists, it would be kind of wild for them to try to argue with that.

I think technically they could propose anything they like, but 2 would never go through because there’s no basis for it, and I think even keeping it in 1 would be a difficult sell with Biden having called for the review and the recommendation being what it was. Plus as you said most public comments (and experts) said they didn’t go far enough.

Honestly I think they’re stuck. They probably can’t just come out and recommend descheduling (and going by public statements probably don’t want to) but the current position is untenable. So they have to just sign up for the “better but nobody is especially happy” option HHS gave them

One thing I wish I understood more was whether Harris could just legalize through an executive order. Biden (and now Harris) said nobody should go to jail for weed but schedule III does not solve that problem at all.

all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why

I figure you’re partially joking but they can’t really make it 2. The HHS recommendation was 3 and even the DEA kind of has to agree even if they don’t want to. It would have been super controversial to do something else, they’re mainly supposed to follow it through with the rulemaking process unless they’re willing to make a serious case. And even then it would probably be to leave it where it is.

One of the theories going around as to why they added the hearing is that they wanted to take the heat off themselves for the call they’ve made by really drawing out the public consultation. Like people will be mad at them for following the recommendation so they want to make a big show of the fact they’re listening to concerns etc.

Hopefully Harris can take some stronger action or legalize through executive order or something. Schedule III is better but it’s then in the same class as ketamine. No judgement of people who like ketamine but COME ON

But it says nothing about methods of attack?

Edit: The article suggests they are air strikes: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/9/25/mapping-10000-cross-border-attacks-between-israel-and-lebanon

Happy to see a source if I’m wrong!

Lol what? Where did you get that?

Uh huh. So no defense of what’s happening, just “that’s the way it is.” Well great. No problem then

So because Iran and Israel have nukes, Israel can’t directly fight their enemy, and that means they have to keep playing whack a mole with proxies, like, forever? All while the “collateral damage” and “accidents” are mounting and more and more innocent people die?

There will always be new “moles” popping up, eliminating Hamas creates Hamas 2 and even if you somehow eliminate Hezbollah there will be Hezbollah 2: maximum bollah. Then you will have to fight them and there will be more whoopsies and more kids end up in bodybags. And then I hope you’re ready because since we’re not fighting the actual enemy but we successfully stopped Hamas 2, guess what we have now?

Seriously. The only result of this is death and the most likely people to die are innocent Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli citizens.

I think Iran should stop funding terrorists.

They won’t. So yet again, do you think Israel should go to war with Iran? Why waste time fighting proxies?

Ah I see. Usually I’m not in favour of the sarcasm tag (ruins the joke) but it would have really helped here, lol.

You don’t need to be on Russia’s payroll to spew pro-Putin talking points

You know, if criticizing killing is a “pro-Putin talking point,” then pro Putin talking points clearly aren’t always bad? Should I be in favour of murder to really show how much I hate Putin? Literally what the fuck are you talking about

I agree with Putin that the sky is blue too. I’m expecting my rubles in the mail any day now.

Putin is a cunt and Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine must be stopped.

If I was on Russia’s payroll that should be enough to get me arrested or at least fired.

So either I’m risking my safety OOOOORRRR not everyone opposed to Biden’s support for Israel is a Russian bot. Golly gosh I wonder which one it is

Biden:

So do you think Israel should go to war with Iran? Or are you happy with innocent Palestinians and Lebanese paying the price instead?

But I will say, when Israel does something, the blame lies with Israel. The blood of the dead is on Israel’s hands and it will never wash off.

The Guardian is a good source!

Are you addressing this comment to people who think Iran is… good? You’re right that they are not nice.

I think I understand your point: Iran is just in it to hurt Israel and doesn’t actually care about Palestinians.

But then isn’t the enemy Iran? How is killing some Lebanese child alongside a “terrorist” going to stop the next attack? Iran will just continue funding, surely? Probably with more willing recruits.

Obviously nobody wants war with Iran, I get that. So, and I know this is crazy, but maybe this is a problem you can’t murder your way out of? Just an idea.

God of the Dead from Hades!

He is a coward. He got off easy with Biden taking the attention away from him, but at the Harris debate, his stupidity and ignorance was on full display for everybody to see. He would embarrass himself again and he knows it.

She should get the air time even if Trump is too much of a coward to show up. Let him seethe about it.

So a low estimate of deaths (not counting people under the rubble for instance) and Israel’s claim on the number of Hamas dead.

Absolutely it will take years! So all claims about civilian to militant ratio in Gaza are unreliable and we should probably not make them

I’m confused why you were so outraged by the use of human shields at first and now when I send examples you all of a sudden don’t seem to care. You didn’t even mention the second example yet.

It’s generally not allowed under international law to target civilians. Civilians getting killed when military objectives are targeted are legal. Proportionally and necessity come into play here.

This is true but it’s only fine if you target “fighters” according to the blog. So it depends on the details of who these people exactly were, just being in Hezbollah is not enough. As you said it’s whether it’s truly proportional and necessary.

And for the targeting thing I think the main issue is whether it was possible in this case to control or even minimize the collateral damage. Since you don’t really know the situation you’re setting a bomb off in:

The targeting law concern will be more likely to centre on whether adequate consideration was given to the incidental injury and damage to be expected from these explosions, given, as is assumed to be the case, that those planning and conducting the operation cannot have known the circumstances that would pertain where each of the large number of explosions took place.

As you said, don’t confuse targeting with who gets hurt at the end. It didn’t come out too bad (by Israel’s standards at least) but that doesn’t mean they exercised the due care in how they did it, legally.

Compare that go Gaza, which has about 2 to 3 civilians per combatant killed.

Would be interested to see where you got those numbers