• 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 That’s how laws work, and people do a fair amount of work to remove outdated and duplicate laws because it makes everyone’s job harder when you have to weed through that.