• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    How much would prohibiting caste discrimination or decriminalizing psilocybin increase the deficit?

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the wrong question.

      “How can this law be exploited.” Or “does it make sense to put another law on the books if this is already addressed with existing laws”

      If you take the specified reason, then it’s explicitly cited as reason #2. But the backlash is manufactured by progressives and exploited by conservatives to incubate in-fighting. Don’t fall for it.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “You are forbidden from asking questions we don’t like. Those are wrong questions. Being anything shy of worshipful every time your party fails you is working with conservatives because we say so. Now excuse us while we capitulate to conservatives and order you to shut up and be happy about it again.”

    • frickineh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one. No clue about the psilocybin. I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one

        “We don’t need laws prohibiting discrimination against [minority]! They’re just whining about nothing because our existing laws cover them!”

        I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

        A lot of unconvincing excuses to keep straight, huh?

        • frickineh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, yeah, if it’s already prohibited under an existing law, you generally don’t need another one. That’s how laws work, and people do a fair amount of work to remove outdated and duplicate laws because it makes everyone’s job harder when you have to weed through that.