zlacker

Unnecessarily bitchy defeatism aside, the answer to your question is the Democratic Party[1].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/01/cory-...

>>__jal+(OP)
It's neither, just correcting misconceptions. It's tiring to constantly hear people saying we're "making progress" while we continue to perpetuate the same policy problems that have obviously caused issues for decades and decades.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the bill you mentioned only seems to deal with marijuana, which I don't think is how most people get drug felonies.

>>__jal+(OP)
This does not affect anyone who is affected by the criminalisation of non-marijuana drugs. This is just a "the drug war is fine, it just needs to have minor parameters tweaked" law, not an end to drug criminalisation.

>>Daniha+c2
It may not be most, but according to statistics[1] from 2015, marijuana accounted for 24% of the drug case sentences. Reducing or eliminating these would be a major step in the right direction and would in my book count as "making progress".

1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu... (top of page 9)

>>Mtinie+A3
Another tepid form of progress is fewer "mandatory minimum" sentences, on page 8. That's nice to see at least, thank you for the PDF.

>>__jal+(OP)
Republican Rand Paul.. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/15/rand-paul-says-pot-prohibi...

Suggesting the Democrat party wants to decriminalize drugs and drug offenses isn’t entirely accurate. Some people in both parties would like to see that happen.

States with vast Democrat majorities haven’t decriminalized drug offenses. Some states have to some degree, but you have to ask, when Democrats has the White House, House and Senate, they could have acted, but didn’t – even when they had a super-majority.

My point isn’t that Republicans are better, but the Democrat Party has had chances, but they failed to act, so the parent comment is correct – no party is actually doing anything when given the chance – just a few isolated people.

>>Daniha+c2
> Correct me if I'm wrong but the bill you mentioned only seems to deal with marijuana, which I don't think is how most people get drug felonies.

You'd be surprised. Lots of weed? Cash? Baggies? Scale? Intent. Felony. Civil forfeiture (State of California v. A bag of $25,000 in cash). Go directly to Chino. Do not pass go.

It's usually the intent to distribute that ends people, and that does happen a lot with marijuana. Simple possession is easier to wiggle out of these days, depending on where you are and if it isn't much. Over a half ounce of marijuana in Virginia used to be a few years in prison (not sure if it still is). I'm carrying over a half ounce on my person right now and it'd be fine. Jurisdiction sucks.

>>briand+O9
FWIW, the Democrats haven't had a supermajority since 2010 (seven years ago, which is a long time in terms of public opinion on drugs), and even then it wasn't a real supermajority[1].

[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-...

>>briand+O9
Use of "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" in this context is meant as a term of abuse, at least by conservatives who have started using it.

If your goal is to signal that you despise that party, then by all means keep using it here, but it seems closer to the kind of substantive discourse that HN encourages to avoid it.

>>andrew+Dp
I feel more like a Democrat is just a shorter way to say a person in the Democratic Party. It doesn't sound right (to me atleast) to say someone is a Democratic. It may be where I am from but we don't use the term Democratic like that. I hear people around where I live say they are Democrats.

To me the -an suffix on Republican seems to suggest the word is about a person where as the word Democratic seems like it is an adjective so Democrat in my mind just gives it a more personified feel.

Conservatives may use Democrat derogatorily but it's still a useful term and in my opinion shouldn't be banned outright from discourse. Maybe I'm missing the context you were speaking of though.