US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55191808
193 comments
Maybe not "voters as a whole", but legislators know which side their bread is buttered on. This fell along party lines, and it won't come up in the Senate because it's controlled by the party that opposes it.
That party has the overwhelming favor of its constituency. They lost the top spot, but largely held their own in legislative elections. They may have a large contingent of people who would be in favor of decriminalization, but they don't seem to mind that their party obstructs it. Meantime, they have a constituency who is bitterly opposed to legalization, so they get to rule the day.
It's a discussion that needs to be held within that party. They won't listen to anybody from outside. They've made their bargain about a slate of issues they care about and issues they're willing to sacrifice.
That party has the overwhelming favor of its constituency. They lost the top spot, but largely held their own in legislative elections. They may have a large contingent of people who would be in favor of decriminalization, but they don't seem to mind that their party obstructs it. Meantime, they have a constituency who is bitterly opposed to legalization, so they get to rule the day.
It's a discussion that needs to be held within that party. They won't listen to anybody from outside. They've made their bargain about a slate of issues they care about and issues they're willing to sacrifice.
Name them. The reason weed will not be legalized in America with this bill is solely, and only, the fault of Republicans
Precisely. Republicans refuse to hold a vote for dozens of life changing bills. This is currently the abject failure of a single party.
Whether it's seen as a failing or a victory is probably a matter of perspective. Republicans probably feel they've been somewhat successful with this obstructionism.
> The fact that this won't sail through congress in a week (it'll never even come up for a vote in the senate) really illustrates how out of touch legislators are with voters.
There is a single person blocking this vote. I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill. If fact, if you include both chambers of Congress, more legislators likely support this bill than don't.
If you want to blame more than one person, blame the Senators that elected the current Senate majority leader.
There is a single person blocking this vote. I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill. If fact, if you include both chambers of Congress, more legislators likely support this bill than don't.
If you want to blame more than one person, blame the Senators that elected the current Senate majority leader.
> I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill.
I thought it went without saying which specific party in the legislative branch is out of touch with the voters, but yes, this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual.
Passing this bill in the house now, when the control of the Senate hangs on an upcoming election, was a brilliant move.
I thought it went without saying which specific party in the legislative branch is out of touch with the voters, but yes, this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual.
Passing this bill in the house now, when the control of the Senate hangs on an upcoming election, was a brilliant move.
> this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual
Why do you believe that history takes sides?
Why do you believe that history takes sides?
It's not so much that history is a living force that has ideas of its own irrespective of people; but that history is going to be written by people into books and the majority of people living today are going to impose their interpretation of the now into the eventual "then" that kids 20 years from now are going to be forced to read.
> fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries.
As far as Marijuana goes, those treaties are on a path to being a dead letter, anyway. Canada and Uruguay, Mexico almost certainly by the end of the year...
And, in fact, the US, given its federal nonenforcement policy (which, is, in part, statutorily mandated in federal law) in states that have legalized, is already in open and flagrant violation of them, anyhow, so that's not a change with legalization.
As far as Marijuana goes, those treaties are on a path to being a dead letter, anyway. Canada and Uruguay, Mexico almost certainly by the end of the year...
And, in fact, the US, given its federal nonenforcement policy (which, is, in part, statutorily mandated in federal law) in states that have legalized, is already in open and flagrant violation of them, anyhow, so that's not a change with legalization.
Even though public opinion has largely shifted on the Drug War and marijuana specifically, there remains a problem of vested economic interests in preserving the status quo: pharma and alcohol producers that don't want competition, private prisons and prison guard unions that fear loss of revenue, etc.
Having watched legalization play out here in Colorado (quite successfully by any metric), I think what greased the wheels of viability was simple profit motive, for better or worse. The "anti" lobbyists guarding their turf were balanced by "pro" lobbyists who perceived a growth market and investment opportunity; and both citizens and representatives were assuaged by the prospect of significant tax revenue for schools. Paradoxically, it may be that full federal legalization (with a revenue-positive regulatory framework) is more politically viable than decriminalization, even if the latter objectively saves taxpayers money.
Having watched legalization play out here in Colorado (quite successfully by any metric), I think what greased the wheels of viability was simple profit motive, for better or worse. The "anti" lobbyists guarding their turf were balanced by "pro" lobbyists who perceived a growth market and investment opportunity; and both citizens and representatives were assuaged by the prospect of significant tax revenue for schools. Paradoxically, it may be that full federal legalization (with a revenue-positive regulatory framework) is more politically viable than decriminalization, even if the latter objectively saves taxpayers money.
> fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries
As I understand it, the US Congress has the power to withdraw from any treaty with legislation without restriction[0], by passing an Act that repeals the effect of the treaty. "Parliament | Congress cannot bind its future self" is a well-settled Common Law principle.
Treaties receive no special status. While they may be negotiated and recommended by the President, and come into effect upon supermajority consent of the Senate, treaties are nevertheless held to be legislative in nature. Since Congress cannot bind its future self, it can repeal any treaty at any time with the usual mechanisms.
Meaning: an Act that fully legalised marijuana could include clauses repealing the legal status of treaties.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases
As I understand it, the US Congress has the power to withdraw from any treaty with legislation without restriction[0], by passing an Act that repeals the effect of the treaty. "Parliament | Congress cannot bind its future self" is a well-settled Common Law principle.
Treaties receive no special status. While they may be negotiated and recommended by the President, and come into effect upon supermajority consent of the Senate, treaties are nevertheless held to be legislative in nature. Since Congress cannot bind its future self, it can repeal any treaty at any time with the usual mechanisms.
Meaning: an Act that fully legalised marijuana could include clauses repealing the legal status of treaties.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases
Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at - that full legalization could nullify a number of treaties, so it's not just a thing that stands on its own. Congress can absolutely do it, but it's complicated.
Gotcha.
Given the UN has officially recognized it as medicine, I don't think it would be too much of an issue.
> and fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries
I'd be fascinated to know which countries. Obviously Mexico and Canada couldn't care less. Which other ones haven't already moved on?
I'd be fascinated to know which countries. Obviously Mexico and Canada couldn't care less. Which other ones haven't already moved on?
> Which other ones haven't already moved on?
Most of the countries in the world (some places still make posession of small quantities of cannabis a potentially-capital offense); the treaties involved are global drug-control treaties.
Most of the countries in the world (some places still make posession of small quantities of cannabis a potentially-capital offense); the treaties involved are global drug-control treaties.
Well, of course. They need the dithering to negotiate their payouts, situate their investments, and set up their grift schemes. Don't forget the fingerpointing, moral grandstanding, and endless media appearances, jockeying for the spotlight.
> ...illustrates how out of touch legislators are with voters. If there was a nationwide referendum on legalizing (not just decriminalizing) it would pass in a landslide today.
In your own echo chamber, that may be true, but I hope you understand, there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization. They may not be as vocal about it online, but their votes count just as much as yours.
In your own echo chamber, that may be true, but I hope you understand, there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization. They may not be as vocal about it online, but their votes count just as much as yours.
It's not just an echo chamber, there's actual data:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
That's not to say people who oppose the legislation's vote doesn't matter, but it's overturned by the majority that favor it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
That's not to say people who oppose the legislation's vote doesn't matter, but it's overturned by the majority that favor it.
It's important to keep in mind that it's not as clear as many of these headlines make it sound.
By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, which nationwide, has just 59% support.
Also important to note that public support is much lower in some states, and as a federal republic, those individual states have (and should continue to have) the power to decide for the citizens who live there.
By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, which nationwide, has just 59% support.
Also important to note that public support is much lower in some states, and as a federal republic, those individual states have (and should continue to have) the power to decide for the citizens who live there.
59% vs 41% is a respectably large margin. That's 18 points.
Additionally, that number will almost certainly be higher in coming years. The shift we have seen in recent decades seems very robust.
I would argue this is due to the American public realizing that many of the arguments in favor of prohibition were exaggerated or downright false.
Additionally, that number will almost certainly be higher in coming years. The shift we have seen in recent decades seems very robust.
I would argue this is due to the American public realizing that many of the arguments in favor of prohibition were exaggerated or downright false.
For medical use only, it is already legal at the federal level. The generic name is Dronabinol. It is marketed as Marinol and Syndros.
Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)
Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)
> Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest.
100% agree.
100% agree.
> there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization
After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization?
I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.
After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization?
I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.
> I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization
For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still detrimental to society.
[1] https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_...
For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still detrimental to society.
[1] https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_...
This is a very interesting document, but where does it discuss a 20% increase in violent crime? I read the section about organized crime involved with cultivation and assume that bring some violent elements.
While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.
While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.
Page 160, direct quote:
"violent crime increased 20% from 2012 to 2017"
If you graph the data presented in table 46, the increasing trend – specifically in violent crime since 2012 – becomes very clear.
"violent crime increased 20% from 2012 to 2017"
If you graph the data presented in table 46, the increasing trend – specifically in violent crime since 2012 – becomes very clear.
Alabama saw a similar increase in violent crime in the same period, sans legalization. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is more than a spurious correlation.
I'm also not seeing any significant increase in insurance rates after my state ended prohibition, and the traffic fatalities and collisions haven't been significantly impacted.
What explanation do you propose for why cannabis legalization would lead to an increase in violent crime?
I'm also not seeing any significant increase in insurance rates after my state ended prohibition, and the traffic fatalities and collisions haven't been significantly impacted.
What explanation do you propose for why cannabis legalization would lead to an increase in violent crime?
Our auto insurance rates went up significantly in Illinois recently, likely correlated with legalization.
Anecdotally, the people I know who use marijuana drive high regularly and don’t think that doing so is dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Anecdotally, the people I know who use marijuana drive high regularly and don’t think that doing so is dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Not sure where you're seeing a 20% increase in violent crime in this data, but per page 160 of this, violent offense rates per 100,000 population are pretty stable from 2008-2016, with a tick up in 2017. That may or may not be related to legalization, since AFAIK Nebraska didn't legalize anything lately and they also had a tick up in violent crime in 2017 [0].
[0] https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebr...
[0] https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebr...
I think it's reasonable to ask if the people are the same. Who has moved into or out of Colorado? I've heard that initially, large numbers of marijuana users moved to Colorado. They may have different average behavior than the previous population of Colorado, with or without marijuana of any legality.
More. They're the majority-of-the-majority, which is a minority, but enough to stop all legislation. The system of checks and balances is designed so that any change requires overwhelming support, and even a fairly small opposition can block anything from happening.
The votes of people in favor of the status quo always count more than the votes to change, by a factor of perhaps 3 (since they need to be only 26% in order to be the majority-of-the-majority). More, really, since they need to control only one of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
The votes of people in favor of the status quo always count more than the votes to change, by a factor of perhaps 3 (since they need to be only 26% in order to be the majority-of-the-majority). More, really, since they need to control only one of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
...but, but, but. I voted.
> not expected to advance further as long as the Senate remains in Republican hands.
> “This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. It stops the federal government from interfering with what states have decided to do”
In all seriousness, isn’t the Republican platform weaker central government?
Why the exception?
> “This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. It stops the federal government from interfering with what states have decided to do”
In all seriousness, isn’t the Republican platform weaker central government?
Why the exception?
> In all seriousness, isn’t the Republican platform weaker central government?
In all seriousness, no.
Though weaker central government is something they trot out tomjustify opposition to functions they don't like government doing, while cheerfully increasing central government power when the central government is doing things that they approve of, like regulating substances, for instance.
In all seriousness, no.
Though weaker central government is something they trot out tomjustify opposition to functions they don't like government doing, while cheerfully increasing central government power when the central government is doing things that they approve of, like regulating substances, for instance.
A proper conservative position would be weaker central government.
In the US both parties want a stronger central government, just with different priorities.
In the US both parties want a stronger central government, just with different priorities.
> A proper conservative position would be weaker central government.
That would be a proper minarchist position.
“Conservative” is more about the aims of government than its size, though in an attempt to build a coalition with libertarians, American conservatives selectively use minarchist language when justifying their opposition to things that they really oppose for purpose reasons rather than government size reasons.
That would be a proper minarchist position.
“Conservative” is more about the aims of government than its size, though in an attempt to build a coalition with libertarians, American conservatives selectively use minarchist language when justifying their opposition to things that they really oppose for purpose reasons rather than government size reasons.
At this point the whole "small government" thing seems to just be a dog whistle for the Republican base that roughly translates to "if it helps people I don't like we won't fund it."
At this point? Nah, in my view it started with Reagan's "welfare queens" (demonize the recipients of "large government"), which is going on 40 years ago. And that's just because it happened within my lifetime. One can probably go back further, perhaps to Earl Butz from the Nixon administration.
Republicans don't actually stand for anything, other than "do the opposite of what Democrats want"
Comments like this add nothing. By this logic, the inverse is also true.
Not really, the very idea of conservatism is based around not doing new things. Without passing judgement on whether or not that's a good policy standpoint, it's clear the parties are asymmetrical - one wants to pass new policies to change something , the other oppose that.
The GOP policy website this election was literally copy pasted from 2016 - it infamously contained references to how they need to change things the incumbent president did.
The GOP policy website this election was literally copy pasted from 2016 - it infamously contained references to how they need to change things the incumbent president did.
Democrats want less tariffs?
I would love a Neoliberal Democratic party.
I would love a Neoliberal Democratic party.
Republicans literally did not run a platform in the year 2020. They did not have one.
Democrats did.
It's easy to say "both sides" but the facts don't match that platitude.
Democrats did.
It's easy to say "both sides" but the facts don't match that platitude.
That's not quite true. They just renewed the 2016 platform. Their resolution states "without adopting a new platform" and then attaches the full 2016 one below it.
It is actually true that in 2020 the RNC didn't even bother to adopt a new platform [1] but instead pledged fealty to Donald Trump and explicitly, in their own words, "reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration,as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today".
In their own words they define themselves by their opposition to democrats.
[1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_202...
In their own words they define themselves by their opposition to democrats.
[1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_202...
>By this logic, the inverse is also true.
Except, it isn't.
in Obama's memoir, he recalls he and Biden trying to explain the policy merits of a bill to Mitch McConnell, who responds "You must be under the mistaken impression that I care”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonmladd/status/13276522875195965...
Except, it isn't.
in Obama's memoir, he recalls he and Biden trying to explain the policy merits of a bill to Mitch McConnell, who responds "You must be under the mistaken impression that I care”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonmladd/status/13276522875195965...
They see it as less of a "Big Government" thing and more of a "Tough on Crime" thing, which has traditionally had a home in the Republican party since Nixon and Reagan championed the Drug War.
Its insane to me as well, but the traditional Republican base likes to see "dirty criminals" go away and support police efforts to do so, cannabis is still associated with them in their minds.
Personally I think its changing amongst the voting base but theres still a strong cultural momentum around demonizing these drugs, especially amongst the Evangelical White Southerners that make up the core of their voting base.
Edit: There's a cynical side to this as well - Neither party wants to "give" the party anything without getting something in return. Republicans allowing cannabis reform does nothing for them politically but makes the Democrats look good. Why would they allow that to happen without getting something back?
Its insane to me as well, but the traditional Republican base likes to see "dirty criminals" go away and support police efforts to do so, cannabis is still associated with them in their minds.
Personally I think its changing amongst the voting base but theres still a strong cultural momentum around demonizing these drugs, especially amongst the Evangelical White Southerners that make up the core of their voting base.
Edit: There's a cynical side to this as well - Neither party wants to "give" the party anything without getting something in return. Republicans allowing cannabis reform does nothing for them politically but makes the Democrats look good. Why would they allow that to happen without getting something back?
The war on drugs has been a long Republican policy, right along with family values.
To be fair, centrist dems seem to have eagerly embraced it in the 90s. Maybe that's what it took to win elections, but the democrats have bought into this false narrative almost as much as the Republicans, to the point the distinction is just not meaningful.
I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.
I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.
Democrats literally just led a charge to pass marijuana legalization on the federal level. This "both sides" horseshit is insane.
Did you read my whole reply?
> I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.
And it's not all the democrats that support legalization. I bet you the democrats would not be able to pass this in the senate even if they had a majority. I would put a lot of money on this wager.
You can call things "horseshit" all you want, doesn't move the discussion forward.
> I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.
And it's not all the democrats that support legalization. I bet you the democrats would not be able to pass this in the senate even if they had a majority. I would put a lot of money on this wager.
You can call things "horseshit" all you want, doesn't move the discussion forward.
To be fair, most minority and underserved communities back in the 80s and 90s wanted the Dems to take a tough on crime stance, which is why the Dems shifted that way. For example, the crime bill that everyone loves to rag on Biden for voting for was written in cooperation with the input of Black community leaders and activists at the time. It's only in hindsight at the implementation and consequences of those policies that those communities are starting to shift away from that stance.
"Family values". Because I don't see them racing to help provide mandatory days off or sufficient wages for people with lower incomes to be able to spend time with their families.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what family values means aside from the name. Mostly I think it's a euphemism policies that support straight married couples with kids.
It seems to be more about small tax breaks, and making life as difficult as possible for people who are not married and straight. Actually helping people might be construed as socialism.
It seems to be more about small tax breaks, and making life as difficult as possible for people who are not married and straight. Actually helping people might be construed as socialism.
"Family values" as used by republicans always has the implied but not said "of a white, christian, man, who lives in the 1950s" added to it
“Who doesn’t act according to Christ” should also be added to it.
For certain definitions of Christ.
The modern gun totting intolerant Christ is a lot different from the compassionate one who taught about "Loving your neighbor" and "Forgiveness" we learned about in bible school...
The modern gun totting intolerant Christ is a lot different from the compassionate one who taught about "Loving your neighbor" and "Forgiveness" we learned about in bible school...
That's not the modern Republican platform. Both major parties want stronger central government in some instances, and weaker in others. They just differ in which instances are which.
And they're like that because most people (voters in particular) are like that. Everyone wants stronger government control and regulation over the things they personally dislike, and less control over the things they do like, and they vote for the party that matches those preferences.
Most Republican voters like and dislike the same things, while Democratic voters tend to have much larger variability (outside a core set of things.) It's why the GOP has an easier time hanging on to power than the Democrats do.
And they're like that because most people (voters in particular) are like that. Everyone wants stronger government control and regulation over the things they personally dislike, and less control over the things they do like, and they vote for the party that matches those preferences.
Most Republican voters like and dislike the same things, while Democratic voters tend to have much larger variability (outside a core set of things.) It's why the GOP has an easier time hanging on to power than the Democrats do.
This is the problem with both parties, I'd say - the party platforms are somewhat consistent with the views of their voting base, but the actions of the politicians don't align very well with either.
The general impression I get is that a majority of Republicans would support federal decriminalization of cannabis. Most of those support legalization as a specific goal, while others would support through their view of federalism.
A supermajority of US citizens support legalization at this point - only around 1/3 poll as be opposed as of last year, and that number is consistently falling over time.
It's honestly not a partisan issue at this point - it's a "politician" issue.
The general impression I get is that a majority of Republicans would support federal decriminalization of cannabis. Most of those support legalization as a specific goal, while others would support through their view of federalism.
A supermajority of US citizens support legalization at this point - only around 1/3 poll as be opposed as of last year, and that number is consistently falling over time.
It's honestly not a partisan issue at this point - it's a "politician" issue.
It's an electoral system issue. Voting is voluntary, which causes highly-motivated single-issue voters to be overrepresented. Then there's the primary system, which is the same problem squared.
It used to be that politicians could pander a little to the base during a primary and then "run to the centre" in the general. Those days are gone, because "being primaried" is a real and persistent risk.
The practical upshot is that the system is structured to favour fringe voices rather than the median voter.
It used to be that politicians could pander a little to the base during a primary and then "run to the centre" in the general. Those days are gone, because "being primaried" is a real and persistent risk.
The practical upshot is that the system is structured to favour fringe voices rather than the median voter.
[deleted]
No, the Republican platform is for a giant central state but all the resources to be used only for military and police. (Though the policing is only for common people, policing of corporations or rich people is to be defunded and labeled as evil regulation. )
[removed]
Acoustical gunfire triangulation would only affect the people Republicans want to prevent from having guns, so it's not that.
I've given up trying to find coherent values in Republican actions. There are many conservative views that have merit, but they're not reflected in Republican policies.
I've given up trying to find coherent values in Republican actions. There are many conservative views that have merit, but they're not reflected in Republican policies.
[removed]
[deleted]
That unfortunately isn't the Republican platform.
We are taught that in school, but their policy doesn't line up with that.
There is a strong debate to be made Biden is more fiscally right leaning than Trump. Where Trump was big into economic intervention (higher taxes through tariffs and SALT Deduction removal, higher deficit, new government spending projects, tax credits, free money, and restricting commerce on bump stocks).
We are taught that in school, but their policy doesn't line up with that.
There is a strong debate to be made Biden is more fiscally right leaning than Trump. Where Trump was big into economic intervention (higher taxes through tariffs and SALT Deduction removal, higher deficit, new government spending projects, tax credits, free money, and restricting commerce on bump stocks).
> There is a strong debate to be made Biden is more fiscally right leaning than Trump.
Despite having the word “conservatism” in it, fiscal conservatism isn't a Right position in that more of it makes you more right. It's basically a position whose apex is in center-right neoliberal corporate capitalism; go farther left or right and it becomes less of a priority.
Biden is definitely closer to the center-right than Trump, but he's not more right-leaning.
Despite having the word “conservatism” in it, fiscal conservatism isn't a Right position in that more of it makes you more right. It's basically a position whose apex is in center-right neoliberal corporate capitalism; go farther left or right and it becomes less of a priority.
Biden is definitely closer to the center-right than Trump, but he's not more right-leaning.
aisengard(2)
2/3 of Americans support legalizing cannabis. I don’t understand why this bill is so bipartisan among politicians if so many citizens support it.
Prison Industrial Complex lobbying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...
Don't forget pharma [1]. Non-addictive pain management with fewer side effects is not in their interest.
And similarly, the alcohol and tobacco industries. It's really never about morality.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/one-s...
And similarly, the alcohol and tobacco industries. It's really never about morality.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/one-s...
I assume you mean "partisan"?
It's because the people who want it will still vote for you if you keep it criminalized. But a significant number of the ones who want it to stay criminalized will totally write you off if you decriminalize it.
In the US, how motivated people are is usually even more important than how many of them there are. Combine that fact with the electoral college and gerrymandering, and there is a constant threat of minority rule.
EDIT: Private prisons. Can't believe I forgot about that. Everyone else who replied has got the main reason nailed.
It's because the people who want it will still vote for you if you keep it criminalized. But a significant number of the ones who want it to stay criminalized will totally write you off if you decriminalize it.
In the US, how motivated people are is usually even more important than how many of them there are. Combine that fact with the electoral college and gerrymandering, and there is a constant threat of minority rule.
EDIT: Private prisons. Can't believe I forgot about that. Everyone else who replied has got the main reason nailed.
Because Republicans don't need 50% of the support. They need way less because of imbalances built into the system. If your core support still does not support legalizing cannabis then it's not worth it to do it.
For some hard numbers, as of 2018 15.95% of the US population lived in the 25 least populous states and elected half of the US Senate.
To block an conviction of an impeached president or a constitutional amendment, only 34 senators (17 states) are needed. As of 2018, that was as little as 7.32% of the US population.
If you care to do the math yourself, this is my source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...
And some python to help once you have lines to summarize: sum(map(float, open('foo').readlines()))
To block an conviction of an impeached president or a constitutional amendment, only 34 senators (17 states) are needed. As of 2018, that was as little as 7.32% of the US population.
If you care to do the math yourself, this is my source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...
And some python to help once you have lines to summarize: sum(map(float, open('foo').readlines()))
> For some hard numbers, as of 2018 15.95% of the US population lived in the 25 least populous states and elected half of the US Senate.
Unless the Zetas have recently started moving into Wyoming, too, I'm guessing they're also the ones being least harmed by externalities from the war on drugs.
Unless the Zetas have recently started moving into Wyoming, too, I'm guessing they're also the ones being least harmed by externalities from the war on drugs.
[deleted]
Americans don't make laws (or approve judges), Senators do. <16% of the US population elects 50 senators.
It’s almost like the US is a representational republic, not a democracy.
The problem isn't that we're a representative democracy. The problem is the ratio of representation is very far off from the ratios present when the country was formed. The population growth in urban centers combined with the addition of many states with low population has shifted power significantly to a minority.
When the United States was formed and the compromise for 2 Senators per state and house representatives by population was agreed to, the largest state population was 11x the smallest state population. Today, California is 70x Wyoming. This has the effect that Senators from smaller states have way more power in today's world than they did in the 1800s. The ratios are unbalanced and need to be adjusted just like we adjust the apportionment of house representatives via the census every 10 years.
When the United States was formed and the compromise for 2 Senators per state and house representatives by population was agreed to, the largest state population was 11x the smallest state population. Today, California is 70x Wyoming. This has the effect that Senators from smaller states have way more power in today's world than they did in the 1800s. The ratios are unbalanced and need to be adjusted just like we adjust the apportionment of house representatives via the census every 10 years.
The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state. Without the balance, highly populous states would determine the fate of the entire nation, leaving less populated states behind.
The division of states is somewhat arbitrary. Why shouldn't California, New York, Texas or Florida split into North/South or East/West versions to gain more Senators. I understand the compromise that the House represents people and the Senate represents states so the small states don't get overrun by the will of more populous states. But, by the same token, small states should not have so much power that they always overrun the will of the larger states. There should be balance. The House remains relatively in balance due to regular apportionment with the census. The Senate has no mechanism to make sure their power remains balanced. This is a gap that needs to be addressed.
> The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state.
That was the original thinking, but the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but one where each member has a longer term and a hugely outsized influence compared to the number of people they represent.
That was the original thinking, but the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but one where each member has a longer term and a hugely outsized influence compared to the number of people they represent.
So you are explicitly saying that less populated states should override the will of the majority of Americans. That sounds like abuse, not balance.
If the needs of less populated states weren't considered, then there'd be no incentive for them to stay part of the nation. It's necessary for the political system to remain stable.
It is not. Less populated states are a drop in the bucket. If you care about stability, you best not disenfranchise the majority of Americans. There are consequences for such blatant and persistent abuse.
That's a clever turn of a phrase, but doesn't justify your position in any meaningful way.
Can you tell me why it makes sense for so few people to dominate the wills of so many?
Can you tell me why it makes sense for so few people to dominate the wills of so many?
Something something.... Land... something something... Coastal Elites...
Good thing most states weren't drawn to lock up land in a slave vs free state battle that is 150 years over and done with, or this would be a ridiculous comment.
I don't feel represented.
[deleted]
Isn't it what "bipartisan" usually means? When both parties find common ground? I would expect most laws widely supported by the population to be part of a bipartisan situation.
Wild accusation:
Follow the money. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of private prisons, generally in red states.
Follow the money. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of private prisons, generally in red states.
Private prisons held only 8.2% of inmates in 2017, with many states having zero use at all. Looking at the map, it doesn't appear there is much of a divide between red and blue states in terms of likelihood to use private prisons, or the percentage of prisoners held in them.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
Alcohol manufactures have also dumped massive amounts of money in lobbying against marijuana decriminalization because they don't want the competition.
And before that they went after Absinthe >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe#History
Absinthe makes you crazy and criminal, provokes epilepsy and tuberculosis, and has killed thousands of French people. It makes a ferocious beast of man, a martyr of woman, and a degenerate of the infant, it disorganizes and ruins the family and menaces the future of the country.
Absinthe makes you crazy and criminal, provokes epilepsy and tuberculosis, and has killed thousands of French people. It makes a ferocious beast of man, a martyr of woman, and a degenerate of the infant, it disorganizes and ruins the family and menaces the future of the country.
[deleted]
There is just a lot of hand-wringing about the right way to do it. Both parties want to earmark the potential tax income for their special interests. Biden is pushing for meaningless rescheduling instead of outright legalization because those breaking federal drug laws are not legally allowed to own guns, and marijuana is the most used drug outside of alcohol in this country, and they like the way that plays out where millions of pot users have to choose between getting high and having their second amendment rights.
2/3rds of old white men don't support it, and that describes most politicians.
Without knowing when the Senate will look at this and assuming after inauguration, I can see this as a carrot to get out youth vote in the upcoming Georgia senate run-off elections.
It’ll be DOA at the senate.
The House has shown the ability to pass it, which means that if the Dems can flip the Senate (using the GA election), then the House can pass it again next session and have it go to a more favorable Senate. This was less about getting it through Mitch McConnell's Senate, and more about signaling voters: this is what we can do if it's no longer Mitch McConnell's Senate.
This means very little while the republicans control the senate, I imagine.
Possibly not, but we have to at least recognize the importance of one of the chambers of Congress voting to legalize for the first time in 50 years.
The Georgia elections on January 5th decide whether this will remain the case.
That doesn't mean anything when we have "democrats" like Joe Manchin. Democrats seem like they are only good at raising money and scaring us about the evil Republicans, but when they are empowered by voters they do nothing.
Obamacare was passed with 60 votes, no republicans supported it, and that was the best we could do. Republicans have never had that kind of margin in the Senate and look what they are able to accomplish.
At some point you just have to call democrats out for what they are, controlled opposition.
Obamacare was passed with 60 votes, no republicans supported it, and that was the best we could do. Republicans have never had that kind of margin in the Senate and look what they are able to accomplish.
At some point you just have to call democrats out for what they are, controlled opposition.
I can imagine some GOP senators voting for this bill but I feel I have to get pretty imaginative to imagine it passing.
They'll never get a chance to vote on it, because the GOP leader McConnell has final say on what bills come to a vote.
The Senate is a deeply broken political institution. Every single Republican, by supporting Mitch McConnell as majority leader, is complicit in its destruction.
The Senate is a deeply broken political institution. Every single Republican, by supporting Mitch McConnell as majority leader, is complicit in its destruction.
Two from Alaska, for example.
At the very least it is a statement. I think it will be interesting to see how individual senators vote.
Unfortunately that’s not how it works. If republicans remain in control of the senate (Georgia runoff races in January will decide) then they control what they vote on and what they don’t. So there wouldn’t even be a vote.
I think it is very unlikely we will get to see how the individual senators vote with McConnell at the helm.
It likely won’t come to a vote. Then no one has to make a hard opinion.
The timing here is awfully Political.
I imagine Democrats wouldn't do this if they had control of the government.
Seems like lip service to their bases.
I imagine Democrats wouldn't do this if they had control of the government.
Seems like lip service to their bases.
> I imagine Democrats wouldn't do this if they had control of the government.
Why not? It's already decriminalized in virtually the entire country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...
35 states have legalized it for medical use, and 15 have legalized it recreationally. From the map, it looks like Idaho stands alone on it being completely illegal and criminalized.
Why not? It's already decriminalized in virtually the entire country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...
35 states have legalized it for medical use, and 15 have legalized it recreationally. From the map, it looks like Idaho stands alone on it being completely illegal and criminalized.
Big policy changes spends your political capital.
You are going to be getting angry phone calls. Better to get those angry phone calls in exchange for a spending bill that goes to your donors/constituents.
Elections have razor thin margins. What benefit does the politician get?
You are going to be getting angry phone calls. Better to get those angry phone calls in exchange for a spending bill that goes to your donors/constituents.
Elections have razor thin margins. What benefit does the politician get?
> Big policy changes spends your political capital.
That's the point, though. It's not a big policy change - the map demonstrates that. Decriminalization is already the de facto situation in nearly the entire country.
Federal law with regards to marijuana is completely and openly ignored in much of the country. Dispensaries operate with relative impunity.
That's the point, though. It's not a big policy change - the map demonstrates that. Decriminalization is already the de facto situation in nearly the entire country.
Federal law with regards to marijuana is completely and openly ignored in much of the country. Dispensaries operate with relative impunity.
There is a really good point Democrats were almost universally against gay marriage until it cross the public support threshold. Looks at the stark difference between Obama on gay marriage in his first vs second term. If the polling shows enough people support it Democrats will pretty quickly flip to the support side of the issue if it goes anything like marriage.
Legalizing marijuana (67-32) is slightly more popular than gay marriage (61-31), and the crossover was at roughly the same time as gay marriage.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...
To a certain extent, that's how representative government is intended to work.
For sure this should be considered a feature not a bug.
Eh, it's a broadly popular policy with huge moderate appeal: https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
Centrist Democrats have been trying to get this moderate base for a while, and leftist Democrats are obviously gonna support legalization, so this seems like the rare case where they actually get to be aligned on something broadly and would push it if they were in power.
Centrist Democrats have been trying to get this moderate base for a while, and leftist Democrats are obviously gonna support legalization, so this seems like the rare case where they actually get to be aligned on something broadly and would push it if they were in power.
It would be a shame if politicians got some Politics in our politics. /s
[deleted]
> Seems like lip service to their bases.
Awesome! What's the problem?
Awesome! What's the problem?
In theory, this would be the kind of ideological thing Rand Paul would get behind. But I doubt he will, because he lacks his father's integrity: he only votes along Libertarian lines when it's inconsequential.
Really glad this passed, but we can't get COVID19 support and / or get some election reform.
There is even have video evidence of illegally adding and counting votes... but oh no! Can't discuss how to improve that process...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKkheU5cy2E
Frankly, while I agree with the legislation, but the entire country is angry (one way or another). We should probably try to address the real issues.
There is even have video evidence of illegally adding and counting votes... but oh no! Can't discuss how to improve that process...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKkheU5cy2E
Frankly, while I agree with the legislation, but the entire country is angry (one way or another). We should probably try to address the real issues.
COVID19 support just means stealing from taxpayers to line the pockets of the rich. As more information comes out, the scam will be more revealed but unfortunately we do not live in a country of educated voters.
I don't care about COVID relief. If anything passes it will be a scam and no money for the taxpayers who fund it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/01/ppp-sba-d...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
They are literally and blatantly robbing our country at this point, but the political institutions are too dysfunctional to do anything about it.
I don't care about COVID relief. If anything passes it will be a scam and no money for the taxpayers who fund it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/01/ppp-sba-d...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
They are literally and blatantly robbing our country at this point, but the political institutions are too dysfunctional to do anything about it.
It won't pass the Senate floor. Absolutely pointless.
Of course it won't pass. But it isn't pointless - this is theater intended to distract from the utterly disastrous covid stimulus talks that have seen the dems lose more and more ground on a potential deal.
Dems are being held hostage by Republicans who don't care one bit about passing necessary amounts of stimulus (Fed chair Powell has said, paraphrased, "No amount is too much at this point" [1]). Dems need those senate seats in Georgia to break the gridlock caused by Senate Republicans. This will help those efforts (encouraging voter turnout), as does Trump telling his base to not go out and vote [2].
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=powell+stimulus+too+much
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/us/politics/georgia-repub...
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=powell+stimulus+too+much
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/us/politics/georgia-repub...
Not pointless. Having such a bill pass the House contributes to the normalization of cannabis legalization.
The Senate is an incredibly un-democratic institution and a truly massive barrier standing in the way of a functioning government. Mitch McConnell alone can dictate Senate business at his whims.
It is democratic, just not the sort one might expect. It’s a democracy of the states. That’s by design. The House is an approximate democracy of the people in the states (with some weighting so that the most populous states don’t have a complete monopoly) and the senate is a democracy of the states. Together they form an approximate republic of the country’s opinion... in an ideal world.
> It is democratic,
No it's not.
> It’s a democracy of the states.
The “demo-” in “democracy” means something, and it's not “the states”.
If you mean “its a majoritarian body of which the constituents are States”, that's partly true (although in some ways the Senate is nonmajoritarian), but that is, by definition, not a “democracy”.
No it's not.
> It’s a democracy of the states.
The “demo-” in “democracy” means something, and it's not “the states”.
If you mean “its a majoritarian body of which the constituents are States”, that's partly true (although in some ways the Senate is nonmajoritarian), but that is, by definition, not a “democracy”.
Looking at the latin or greek roots of the word is fine from a historical context, but I cant find any definition of democracy that doesnt sound somewhat like this one: "Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives". Its going to take a real stretch to not have the US fit that definition, whether or not you like how the Senate works, or find it fair.
This response frustrates me because while it's technically correct, I think it misses what I was saying entirely.
My perception of what the OP was going for was a complain that the Senate is, in some way and not representing anything - just arbitrary wills.
It is representing something, though. It's the second half of congress and it's meant to represent the will of the states as a whole.
Calling it a "majoritarian body of which the constituents are states", while technically correct, is full of sufficiently advanced language as to lose meaning in regular conversation.
Instead, I explained how it is equal representation, of sorts - the things that are being represented are the states, so it is fair, of sorts.
It's easier for a person who doesn't want to read a set of scholarly words to think "oh, so it's a democracy, except all the states are people" than it is to break down each word - at least, I think it is, which is why I worded it that way.
Also in their statement, I assumed, was an assumption that it's unfair and therefore the Senate is worthless and should be abolished because it ignores everyone's will - even when working properly - so, I tried to compact that in there, as well, by trying to bring implications that the United States of America is not just a collective of people, but it's also a collective of states and each of them desires representation in our democracy.
I guess, thank you for the etymology lesson, but it missed my whole point.
My perception of what the OP was going for was a complain that the Senate is, in some way and not representing anything - just arbitrary wills.
It is representing something, though. It's the second half of congress and it's meant to represent the will of the states as a whole.
Calling it a "majoritarian body of which the constituents are states", while technically correct, is full of sufficiently advanced language as to lose meaning in regular conversation.
Instead, I explained how it is equal representation, of sorts - the things that are being represented are the states, so it is fair, of sorts.
It's easier for a person who doesn't want to read a set of scholarly words to think "oh, so it's a democracy, except all the states are people" than it is to break down each word - at least, I think it is, which is why I worded it that way.
Also in their statement, I assumed, was an assumption that it's unfair and therefore the Senate is worthless and should be abolished because it ignores everyone's will - even when working properly - so, I tried to compact that in there, as well, by trying to bring implications that the United States of America is not just a collective of people, but it's also a collective of states and each of them desires representation in our democracy.
I guess, thank you for the etymology lesson, but it missed my whole point.
> equal representation, of sorts - the things that are being represented are the states, so it is fair, of sorts.
Equal representation of things that aren't the individual citizens is not democracy, and is in fact opposed to democracy; and "fair, of sorts" is orthogonal to democracy.
Yes, democracy is a more convenient term and concept than many of those that might be accurately applied to the Senate, but its not even remotely accurate when applied to the Senate, which is deliberately not merely non-democratic, but actively anti-democratic.
If you want to argue that the design of the Senate is useful or good or fair in some way, go ahead and do that, but don't expect to use "democracy" for that purpose without argument just because its a warm fuzzy word that is more convenient than any word with equally positive general reception that accurately applies to the Senate.
Equal representation of things that aren't the individual citizens is not democracy, and is in fact opposed to democracy; and "fair, of sorts" is orthogonal to democracy.
Yes, democracy is a more convenient term and concept than many of those that might be accurately applied to the Senate, but its not even remotely accurate when applied to the Senate, which is deliberately not merely non-democratic, but actively anti-democratic.
If you want to argue that the design of the Senate is useful or good or fair in some way, go ahead and do that, but don't expect to use "democracy" for that purpose without argument just because its a warm fuzzy word that is more convenient than any word with equally positive general reception that accurately applies to the Senate.
I could see that being true if we didn't have this two-party gridlock. In a world where D votes against R because "red team bad" and R votes against D because "blue team bad", it feels like we're watching our entire democracy erode away.
One person shouldn't be able to unilaterally decide what will and won't be voted on, and shouldn't be able to tell half of the senate how they'll be voting if they want access to re-election funds.
I don't know what the solution is, or who could implement one. But it's really hard to look at the last decade or two and claim that the senate is working as intended.
One person shouldn't be able to unilaterally decide what will and won't be voted on, and shouldn't be able to tell half of the senate how they'll be voting if they want access to re-election funds.
I don't know what the solution is, or who could implement one. But it's really hard to look at the last decade or two and claim that the senate is working as intended.
Try not to be misled into thinking that most of the GOP has any problem with how Mitch wields his power. Mitch McConnell wouldn't still be the Senate Majority leader if they did. He isn't acting alone, he's just who's taking the blame.
He is a convenient scape goat for all the other Republican senators. They could replace him if they really wanted to, but they dont.
> Mitch McConnell alone can dictate Senate business at his whims.
No, he can't, because he can be replaced if the majority caucus is unhappy with him. He hasn't been because he enacts their will.
No, he can't, because he can be replaced if the majority caucus is unhappy with him. He hasn't been because he enacts their will.
I know hn doesn't like politics, but it amazes me how popular one party's policies are(see polls for single payer healthcare, gov funded college, wealth tax, etc ), but it is still competitive. Republicans are certainly better at "politics".
It will be fun to see how they spin this into the vague notion of socialism or somehow this is taking away your freedom.
> Republicans are certainly better at "politics".
They don't need to be better to get their way. The US system gives rural areas disproportionate political power. Rural areas are less diverse, older, more religious, less educated and more conservative than the cities.
The disproportionate influence was built in on purpose when the US was formed. Sparsely-populated states wouldn't agree to a union if populous New York was going to dominate all policy. There have always been arguments about the pros and cons.
They don't need to be better to get their way. The US system gives rural areas disproportionate political power. Rural areas are less diverse, older, more religious, less educated and more conservative than the cities.
The disproportionate influence was built in on purpose when the US was formed. Sparsely-populated states wouldn't agree to a union if populous New York was going to dominate all policy. There have always been arguments about the pros and cons.
> somehow this is taking away your freedom
IIUC it could indirectly reduce some people’s freedom to live, because marijuana can impair driving but is harder to diagnose as the cause for accidents than alcohol — because tests only show whether it has been taken in the last few weeks, not whether the subject is intoxicated at the moment of the test. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
IIUC it could indirectly reduce some people’s freedom to live, because marijuana can impair driving but is harder to diagnose as the cause for accidents than alcohol — because tests only show whether it has been taken in the last few weeks, not whether the subject is intoxicated at the moment of the test. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
As mentioned, there are 100 other ways a driver can be "impaired", what's more there are ways to make the roads safer thereby increasing my freedom.
Why don't we just put automated red light cameras and speed cameras everywhere? Won't that maximize my freedom to on safe roads?
Would you support such a measure?
Why don't we just put automated red light cameras and speed cameras everywhere? Won't that maximize my freedom to on safe roads?
Would you support such a measure?
I considered it for a bit. I think I wouldn’t, because they’d presumably run proprietary, un-auditable software that could surveil many innocent bystanders — if they ran verifiably decent Free software I likely would. There are similar risks with the DEA et. al., so I think we should push for high transparency from them, preserve oversight and due process such as requiring warrants before search and seizure, ban no-knock warrants (pass the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act), and otherwise make them much more accountable than a typical surveillance camera is. Edit: and make this a local issue, and let each locality deal with it as suits that locality best.
As could mobile phones, putting on make up, working a 24 hour shift at the hospital...
In fact, all the things listed above make someone a far more dangerous driver than marijuana use. Yet working extra long hours and sleep deprivation in the name of "productivity" is celebrated.
In fact, all the things listed above make someone a far more dangerous driver than marijuana use. Yet working extra long hours and sleep deprivation in the name of "productivity" is celebrated.
I believe governments can and do outlaw using mobile phones or taking hands off the wheel while driving. 24 hour shifts at the hospital may be justified AFAIK by potentially saving more lives than they risk losing — I would hope there are precautions in place to minimize those risks (such as housing immediately adjacent to the hospital — IIRC this was the case for Ben Carson when he worked long shifts at Johns Hopkins). Similarly, I’m not opposed to medical marijuana use, which I think may alleviate more pain and suffering than it causes — but I don’t think the same is true for recreational use, I think that may trade human lives for shallow fleeting pleasure, and cannot be practically risk-mitigated by outlawing exclusively before driving, only completely or not all, for the testing reasons I mentioned in my first post.
If you have had experience with marijuana or people who have used marijuana, I do see how one could justify the think the risks commensurate with a wholesale ban on consumption.
I can think of a million other things to ban, starting with mandatory breathalyzers on all cars that disable the engine upon detection of alcohol, that would yield a bigger benefit in exchange for the loss of freedom.
But I’m also not about banning every single thing that increases morbidity/mortality risks.
I can think of a million other things to ban, starting with mandatory breathalyzers on all cars that disable the engine upon detection of alcohol, that would yield a bigger benefit in exchange for the loss of freedom.
But I’m also not about banning every single thing that increases morbidity/mortality risks.
[deleted]
> It includes measures to expunge the federal criminal records of those charged or convicted for non-violent cannabis offenses
I feel this line is what'll cause the bill to not pass in the Senate.
I don't see why the removal of cannabis from the scheduled drugs list needs to be coupled with criminal record expungement. Do one. Then move to do the next.
Is this how things are usually done?
I feel this line is what'll cause the bill to not pass in the Senate.
I don't see why the removal of cannabis from the scheduled drugs list needs to be coupled with criminal record expungement. Do one. Then move to do the next.
Is this how things are usually done?
The problem is you would have people doing 5-20 (or whatever) for something that is no longer illegal. It seems unfair, so when the law is changed like this I think it’s common to adjust the sentences of people currently in prison.
Yes, this is typically how politics works. Bills should pass by a very narrow margin. Excess votes represents potential political energy. If a bill passes with a large margin, that means that there was probably something else that could have been added that would have lost some of those votes, but not enough to still not pass. It's all a game of The Price Is Right, getting closest to the number but not going over.
> Is this how things are usually done?
Yes, you pack the politically tenuous stuff in with the widely supported stuff so you put the opposing side in an optically bad position if they reject it.
The headlines will be “Senate rejects marijuana decriminalization bill supported by majority of population” rather than “Senate rejects criminal record expungement”.
Politics are fucked in this country.
Yes, you pack the politically tenuous stuff in with the widely supported stuff so you put the opposing side in an optically bad position if they reject it.
The headlines will be “Senate rejects marijuana decriminalization bill supported by majority of population” rather than “Senate rejects criminal record expungement”.
Politics are fucked in this country.
The only thing messed up is that someone would consider expunging convictions from a law that violated people's freedom to consume a substance that does no harm to anyone else as "politically tenuous".
Yes, often even intentionally to reduce the changes of a bill passing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_amendment
I assume that you mean "reduce chances of the bill passing", adding this rider would increase the changes if the bill passes!
Ah yes, thank you!
Great to see the worsening COVID crisis getting the attention it deserves...
They put off on voting on this before the election to focus on Covid legislation.
The congress is more than capable of doing multiple things at once.
The congress is more than capable of doing multiple things at once.
The house passed covid relief bill in June and then again in October. What more do you want from them? It takes two to negotiate
The House and Senate are, in fact, in heavy negotiations on a bipartisan ~$1T COVID aid package that apparently Pelosi and McConnell have both agreed should be attached to the spending bill nevesy to avoid a government shutdown. It's not like the House (or Senate) can only work on one bill at a time.
We sure could reduce a lot of unnecessary spread by having people no longer physically moved in and out of police cars, jails, courthouses, and prisons for no good reason.
The government is capable of multi-tasking. There are talks going on for continuing stimulus. Vaccines are now approved by the CDC and will roll out shortly. Plus, state & local governments are continuing to provide updates on the status of their hospitals.
COVID-19 is still a dedicated category on Google News, and other news sites. Nobody is ignoring it.
COVID-19 is still a dedicated category on Google News, and other news sites. Nobody is ignoring it.
It's impossible to do more than one thing at a time?
Yup. The Senate is a Single Input Queue.
The house isn't the branch of government holding up the stimulus. McConnell has been sitting on a stimulus bill since July.
In a very partisan vote that will not survive the Senate. Apart from virtue signalling, why bother? We are post election, so it doesn't even help us decide how to vote.
Trying this after January at least might've made more sense.
It's frustrating we see full House votes on pointless partisan efforts when there are issues like infrastructure that both parties could and should agree on and progress in.
Trying this after January at least might've made more sense.
It's frustrating we see full House votes on pointless partisan efforts when there are issues like infrastructure that both parties could and should agree on and progress in.
Pretty sure they're doing this to entice people to vote in the Georgia runoffs so Dems will control the Senate. "Vote for us and we can make this law."
This right here. It's literally this right here. So in other words, it's not pointless, it's political tactic. A good tactic to entice unlikely voters to vote Democrat.
I suppose this is reasonable, but then, why'd they wait until after the general?
Multiple reasons, depending on your level of cynicism. Least cynical is that there were competing priorities in the general and the current President was (is) an overall distraction from any policy discussions. Most cynical is that Dems don't actually like winning because it gives them somebody to blame. Both are corporatist parties that don't generally work for the majority of people. But, like I said, that's the cynical take!
In this case the virtue signalling has the potential of motivating voters to flip the senate via the Georgia runoffs or else in 2022.
> It's frustrating we see full House votes on pointless partisan efforts when there are issues like infrastructure that both parties could and should agree on and progress in.
The House passed a big infrastructure bill in July. They've also already passed several other bipartisan bills.
These mostly just die in the Senate because McConnell does not even allow them to come to a vote. His Senate is mostly focused on confirming judges.
There are literally hundreds of bills that have passed the House that are completely stalled in the Senate.
The House passed a big infrastructure bill in July. They've also already passed several other bipartisan bills.
These mostly just die in the Senate because McConnell does not even allow them to come to a vote. His Senate is mostly focused on confirming judges.
There are literally hundreds of bills that have passed the House that are completely stalled in the Senate.
I like it when politicians virtue signal support for freedoms.
Because it's the right thing to do?
And there is no progress to be made from the House when they are not the road block. Reconsider what you are saying.
And there is no progress to be made from the House when they are not the road block. Reconsider what you are saying.
> pointless partisan efforts
It may be partisan in terms of federal politics, but this is absolutely not a partisan issue to a huge majority of Americans.
It may be partisan in terms of federal politics, but this is absolutely not a partisan issue to a huge majority of Americans.
Or the millions who's lives were destroyed by this bullshit. Tell them that it's just about politics.
I realize it's more complicated than giving voters what they want. The US has flexed its policy muscles for the drug war for decades, and fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries. However, decriminalizing should be a no-brainer.