5 ms·

Why not both? Why can't we have strong border security and legalize drugs? I'm hoping with the recent Sessions announcement that he will be enforcing federal la

Why not both? Why can't we have strong border security and legalize drugs? I'm hoping with the recent Sessions announcement that he will be enforcing federal law in states where marijuana is "legal" that will put pressure on congress to legalize it. Or at least repeal all federal laws on it and truly leave it up to the states. This is a pretty good short video about how building a wall can help Mexicans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLv8Z6bsI24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLv8Z6bsI24

notfromhere 9y ago
Congress is going to do diddly squat about legalization while the GOP runs the place.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  You say that. I'm not so sure, and I'll make no predictions. But when the Republican Congress decriminalizes marijuana ahead of the mid-terms, I'll be back to check what you have to say then. I think these guys have the power to think outside the box and surprise you. I agree with grandparent that Sessions' action will tend to increase pressure for federal decrim., and that might even be Sessions' (and/or President Trump's) goal. What would the effect of Federal decriminalization be on the mid-terms? Don't you think it would help Republicans? Do you think they don't think so? Of course they think so. I don't know if it will pass, but my guess is that a reasonable bill would decriminalize marijuana possession and trade, but would keep it illegal for interstate commerce (this would be a sop to those States that want to keep it criminalized). Sort of like the 21st Amendment, but as a statute. Such a compromise would help Republicans in States where legalization is popular and... would not hurt them in States where it is not. It would also help with the federalist types. This should all be blindingly obvious. The only reason I wouldn't make a prediction is that Republicans sure know how to shoot their feet off.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > But when the Republican Congress decriminalizes marijuana ahead of the mid-terms With what votes, and what leadership? The entirety of the GOP house leadership opposes any form of legal cannabis. Messer, the policy committee chair, even opposes medical cannabis for vets prescribed by their VA doctor and residing in states where medical cannabis is legal. Concretely, which GOP representatives do you think will vote for decriminalization? I'm incredulous, but curious to hear a rational argument that this is a remotely reasonable expectation.
    - cryptonector 9y ago
      I can't make a "rational argument" about what people I don't know might do. I am saying that it's very much in their interest and that I would not be surprised if they do it. How about we check in here again when it happens / fails to happen?
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Just because they have a rational interest tells you nothing about the probability. It's a little rude to throw out a bold claim ('when the Republican Congress decriminalizes marijuana ahead of the mid-terms' as if that were highly probable) and then suggest tabling the discussion when you get refuted. Sure, if you think they should do it, totally valid opinion. Talking as they are going to implies knowing something that everyone else doesn't, which is why you're being challenged about it.
      - dpc59 9y ago
        You could say I'd have a rational interest in becoming a doctor because I'd stand to make on average 300k a year. I won't do it for other reasons which aren't pondered. It's easy to make something look rational when you pick and choose axioms. The republicans don't have a rational interest in decriminalization because their financial backers don't want it, and they have moral qualms about it since 100 years of government lies convinced them it's the devil's plant.
  - wfo 9y ago
    The theory that a party that has consistently screamed bloody murder for the last 60 years about anything that even smells like toning down the war on drugs or carceral state is somehow playing 1000 dimensional political chess and cracking down on drugs because of their secret plan to legalize them is... well, how do I put this... wildly speculative? Do you think your theory is really more likely than this being Sessions simply doing exactly what he's explicitly said he has wanted to do every single moment of his entire adult life, crack down on people who use pot? Crushing states where pot is legal will lose them the most heavily blue seats that they would never win anyway, but why should they care? It will give their base what they say they want whenever you ask them, the thing that they want most, that drives them to the polls. It is an assault in a culture war against the smug, pot-smoking coastal elites and despised pot-smoking minorities, hippies, college kids. Perhaps they see the drug war for what it is, for how it was designed: not a war on drugs, but a war on the demographic groups of people who tend to use them. And that's why they support it. At best, I'd see them allowing a vote on it then let their vulnerable reps in purple/blue states vote yes but make sure it fails anyway: "I'm on your side, I promise, see, I tried".
- briandear 9y ago
  Let's be fair here. How much did Democrats do when they controlled the House, Senate and White House? These arguments are popular when someone's preferred party is out of power, but reality is that there is a bipartisan opposition and bipartisan support for legalization. About 28% of Democrats oppose legalization, while 30% of Republicans support legalization. The numbers are actually fascinating. [1] For example, Hillary Clinton was all over the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed into law -- with a Democrat Congress (Republicans didn't actually take the majority until Jan 1995 after sweeping the 1994 midterm elections.[2] She promoted the law, she supported it. She even famously called African American young men "super predators" -- while stumping for Bill Clinton on the 1996 campaign trail. That super predators line came when Hillary was trumpeting the success of the 1994 crime bill. [3] So to imply that "Congress is going to do diddly squat about legalization while the GOP runs the place" -- that's intellectually dishonest. And the reason I mention Hillary Clinton is because the implication with these sorts of comments is that Democrats would legalize if Trump and the GOP weren't in power. Since Hillary was the alternative, her background is very relevant. [1] http://iop.harvard.edu/survey/details/political-issue-marijuana http://iop.harvard.edu/survey/details/political-issue-mariju... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-clinton-crime-bill-hillary-black-lives-thomas-frank https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-c... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/...
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    Dems haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in decades, and spent all their capital during the obama years on healthcare reform. Legal weed wasn't happening back then. If Clinton was president, they would have most likely kept the Obama-era policy rather than reverse it after multiple states voted for legalization
toomanybeersies 9y ago
Has anyone done a survey to determine if there's broad congressional support for the legalization of cannabis?
- zolthrowaway 9y ago
  Yes. Gallup does this ever year. It's been over 60% for the last two years[1]. [1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legal...
  - mastax 9y ago
    American support for legalization != congressional support for legalization, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/29/meet-the-senators-and-congressmen-who-support-marijuana-legalization/?utm_term=.e63c6f761486 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/29/meet-...
javajosh 9y ago
Both good suggestions. Personally, I wouldn't mind leaving legalization up to the states, similar to gambling. The problem with increased border security is, in my view, is that big federal security apparatuses (apparati?) are security contractor cash-cows engaged in security theater. The DHS in general and the TSA in particular are cases in point. In other words, I don't think government should be a meat-grinder into which you feed people you don't like. a) false positives are far too frequent, and b) literally no-one deserves to be put into "the system" as it stands. Maybe if the justice system were reformed, maybe if politicians (particularly the GOP) showed some adherence to actual values instead of tribal, angry populism, I could get behind that.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  In general I agree, especially with the TSA. I'm not a fan of the amount of foreign intervention we do. Such as in Syria, it is sad to see how terrible things are there, but I have no idea how it is of any strategic importance to our country. I'd much rather we just let Russia do as they see fit considering it is much more in their interest to stabilize the region than it is ours. It is akin to Russia intervening in Venezuela. That said, borders are what makes a country. If you cannot do something so basic as controlling who comes into your country, it would be pretty difficult to call yourself a sovereign nation. So I think that should be a much higher priority in terms of national defense than interfering in conflicts thousands of miles away. Since I'm quite libertarian, I'm not a huge fan of government action in general. However, I do see a role for government and defending the borders of the country from foreign invasion (which is essentially what illegal immigration is) should be the government's highest priority as it is the most basic role of government. While it has become a meme, building a wall, at least along the easiest places to cross, would make the job for our border guards much easier. It would also have maintenance costs, but if we do it right it very well could be worth it in the long run. Especially if you take into consideration how many government resources illegal immigrants take away from the rest of the population. A little anecdote I saw a while back during the "immigrant day of absence" to show how necessary "immigrants" (that term is very muddied since people insist on lumping legal and illegal immigrants into the same bucket) are a lot of kids didn't show up for school. A teacher tweeted about it saying how much easier class was that day because of how many fewer students there were to teach. So to some people that day had the opposite effect as to what was intended by the organizers. Anyway, no other country on the face of the planet are as courteous and welcoming as the US is to people who aren't in their borders legally. I do not see us owing them anything, and while they do have certain rights, we shouldn't treat them like cockroaches, they have broken our laws and should be dealt with in the same way we would deal with any of our own citizens who would break the law. In addition to being deported at the end of their confinement. As for criminal justice reformation, I more or less agree, depending on what you are referring to since that's quite the broad statement. Ending the war on drugs would be a great thing. But I see a lot of our problems to be more societal and stemming from illegitimate children, fatherless homes, than any other single source.
dang 9y ago
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological and political arguments. That's actually an abuse of the site, and we eventually ban accounts that do it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. HN's core value is intellectual curiosity. That's the first casualty in ideological battle—actually it evaporates before the battle even begins—so we have to be proactive about this. If you'd please read the site guidelines and also https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  Ah, I was afraid of this. I wasn't really intending on starting flame wars or anything. They are just the posts I feel I have something to add. I'll attempt to diversify my comments.
- wooter 9y ago
  reading through your history there is an obvious bias in who you choose to say this to based on your personal ideology. not to mention your various strictly ideological and political submissions. disappointing as that seems like an abuse of the guidelines and your power.
  - dang 9y ago
    People's image of HN mods' political bias is entirely predictable from their own ideological affiliation. Strong rightists think we (and HN itself) lean left, strong leftists think we (and HN) lean right. Since the conclusions you all draw are so contradictory, I don't think these charges have much informational value—at least not about us. There's clearly a cognitive bias at work here. If you don't believe me, here are some quite typical posts that run the contrary direction to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16019694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16019694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15034119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15034119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529468 These people are having the same reaction as you are, they just start from the opposite end of the football field. That doesn't mean we're magic centrists in a centrist fairyland. It means the situation is affected by other factors, some of which aren't obvious. If you want to look at this objectively you have to work to suspend your own political feelings, which is not easy to do and not something many people want to.
stephenboyd 9y ago
There are already walls at the border where it makes sense. Do you want a wall separating Texas from the Rio Grande?
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  What I've seen are short fences at best. Barely enough to stop a paraplegic. Gates are possible to build, not to mention a lot of the Rio Grande wouldn't need anything built near it because of the natural geography and the sheer cliffs that are practically unscalable.

notfromhere 9y ago

Congress is going to do diddly squat about legalization while the GOP runs the place.

cryptonector 9y ago
You say that. I'm not so sure, and I'll make no predictions. But when the Republican Congress decriminalizes marijuana ahead of the mid-terms, I'll be back to check what you have to say then. I think these guys have the power to think outside the box and surprise you. I agree with grandparent that Sessions' action will tend to increase pressure for federal decrim., and that might even be Sessions' (and/or President Trump's) goal. What would the effect of Federal decriminalization be on the mid-terms? Don't you think it would help Republicans? Do you think they don't think so? Of course they think so. I don't know if it will pass, but my guess is that a reasonable bill would decriminalize marijuana possession and trade, but would keep it illegal for interstate commerce (this would be a sop to those States that want to keep it criminalized). Sort of like the 21st Amendment, but as a statute. Such a compromise would help Republicans in States where legalization is popular and... would not hurt them in States where it is not. It would also help with the federalist types. This should all be blindingly obvious. The only reason I wouldn't make a prediction is that Republicans sure know how to shoot their feet off.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > But when the Republican Congress decriminalizes marijuana ahead of the mid-terms With what votes, and what leadership? The entirety of the GOP house leadership opposes any form of legal cannabis. Messer, the policy committee chair, even opposes medical cannabis for vets prescribed by their VA doctor and residing in states where medical cannabis is legal. Concretely, which GOP representatives do you think will vote for decriminalization? I'm incredulous, but curious to hear a rational argument that this is a remotely reasonable expectation.
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    I can't make a "rational argument" about what people I don't know might do. I am saying that it's very much in their interest and that I would not be surprised if they do it. How about we check in here again when it happens / fails to happen?
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Just because they have a rational interest tells you nothing about the probability. It's a little rude to throw out a bold claim ('when the Republican Congress decriminalizes marijuana ahead of the mid-terms' as if that were highly probable) and then suggest tabling the discussion when you get refuted. Sure, if you think they should do it, totally valid opinion. Talking as they are going to implies knowing something that everyone else doesn't, which is why you're being challenged about it.
    - dpc59 9y ago
      You could say I'd have a rational interest in becoming a doctor because I'd stand to make on average 300k a year. I won't do it for other reasons which aren't pondered. It's easy to make something look rational when you pick and choose axioms. The republicans don't have a rational interest in decriminalization because their financial backers don't want it, and they have moral qualms about it since 100 years of government lies convinced them it's the devil's plant.
- wfo 9y ago
  The theory that a party that has consistently screamed bloody murder for the last 60 years about anything that even smells like toning down the war on drugs or carceral state is somehow playing 1000 dimensional political chess and cracking down on drugs because of their secret plan to legalize them is... well, how do I put this... wildly speculative? Do you think your theory is really more likely than this being Sessions simply doing exactly what he's explicitly said he has wanted to do every single moment of his entire adult life, crack down on people who use pot? Crushing states where pot is legal will lose them the most heavily blue seats that they would never win anyway, but why should they care? It will give their base what they say they want whenever you ask them, the thing that they want most, that drives them to the polls. It is an assault in a culture war against the smug, pot-smoking coastal elites and despised pot-smoking minorities, hippies, college kids. Perhaps they see the drug war for what it is, for how it was designed: not a war on drugs, but a war on the demographic groups of people who tend to use them. And that's why they support it. At best, I'd see them allowing a vote on it then let their vulnerable reps in purple/blue states vote yes but make sure it fails anyway: "I'm on your side, I promise, see, I tried".
briandear 9y ago
Let's be fair here. How much did Democrats do when they controlled the House, Senate and White House? These arguments are popular when someone's preferred party is out of power, but reality is that there is a bipartisan opposition and bipartisan support for legalization. About 28% of Democrats oppose legalization, while 30% of Republicans support legalization. The numbers are actually fascinating. [1] For example, Hillary Clinton was all over the 1994 crime bill that her husband signed into law -- with a Democrat Congress (Republicans didn't actually take the majority until Jan 1995 after sweeping the 1994 midterm elections.[2] She promoted the law, she supported it. She even famously called African American young men "super predators" -- while stumping for Bill Clinton on the 1996 campaign trail. That super predators line came when Hillary was trumpeting the success of the 1994 crime bill. [3] So to imply that "Congress is going to do diddly squat about legalization while the GOP runs the place" -- that's intellectually dishonest. And the reason I mention Hillary Clinton is because the implication with these sorts of comments is that Democrats would legalize if Trump and the GOP weren't in power. Since Hillary was the alternative, her background is very relevant. [1] http://iop.harvard.edu/survey/details/political-issue-marijuana http://iop.harvard.edu/survey/details/political-issue-mariju... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-clinton-crime-bill-hillary-black-lives-thomas-frank https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-c... [3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/...
- notfromhere 9y ago
  Dems haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in decades, and spent all their capital during the obama years on healthcare reform. Legal weed wasn't happening back then. If Clinton was president, they would have most likely kept the Obama-era policy rather than reverse it after multiple states voted for legalization

toomanybeersies 9y ago

Has anyone done a survey to determine if there's broad congressional support for the legalization of cannabis?

zolthrowaway 9y ago
Yes. Gallup does this ever year. It's been over 60% for the last two years[1]. [1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legal...
- mastax 9y ago
  American support for legalization != congressional support for legalization, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/29/meet-the-senators-and-congressmen-who-support-marijuana-legalization/?utm_term=.e63c6f761486 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/29/meet-...

javajosh 9y ago

Both good suggestions. Personally, I wouldn't mind leaving legalization up to the states, similar to gambling. The problem with increased border security is, in my view, is that big federal security apparatuses (apparati?) are security contractor cash-cows engaged in security theater. The DHS in general and the TSA in particular are cases in point. In other words, I don't think government should be a meat-grinder into which you feed people you don't like. a) false positives are far too frequent, and b) literally no-one deserves to be put into "the system" as it stands. Maybe if the justice system were reformed, maybe if politicians (particularly the GOP) showed some adherence to actual values instead of tribal, angry populism, I could get behind that.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
In general I agree, especially with the TSA. I'm not a fan of the amount of foreign intervention we do. Such as in Syria, it is sad to see how terrible things are there, but I have no idea how it is of any strategic importance to our country. I'd much rather we just let Russia do as they see fit considering it is much more in their interest to stabilize the region than it is ours. It is akin to Russia intervening in Venezuela. That said, borders are what makes a country. If you cannot do something so basic as controlling who comes into your country, it would be pretty difficult to call yourself a sovereign nation. So I think that should be a much higher priority in terms of national defense than interfering in conflicts thousands of miles away. Since I'm quite libertarian, I'm not a huge fan of government action in general. However, I do see a role for government and defending the borders of the country from foreign invasion (which is essentially what illegal immigration is) should be the government's highest priority as it is the most basic role of government. While it has become a meme, building a wall, at least along the easiest places to cross, would make the job for our border guards much easier. It would also have maintenance costs, but if we do it right it very well could be worth it in the long run. Especially if you take into consideration how many government resources illegal immigrants take away from the rest of the population. A little anecdote I saw a while back during the "immigrant day of absence" to show how necessary "immigrants" (that term is very muddied since people insist on lumping legal and illegal immigrants into the same bucket) are a lot of kids didn't show up for school. A teacher tweeted about it saying how much easier class was that day because of how many fewer students there were to teach. So to some people that day had the opposite effect as to what was intended by the organizers. Anyway, no other country on the face of the planet are as courteous and welcoming as the US is to people who aren't in their borders legally. I do not see us owing them anything, and while they do have certain rights, we shouldn't treat them like cockroaches, they have broken our laws and should be dealt with in the same way we would deal with any of our own citizens who would break the law. In addition to being deported at the end of their confinement. As for criminal justice reformation, I more or less agree, depending on what you are referring to since that's quite the broad statement. Ending the war on drugs would be a great thing. But I see a lot of our problems to be more societal and stemming from illegitimate children, fatherless homes, than any other single source.

dang 9y ago

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological and political arguments. That's actually an abuse of the site, and we eventually ban accounts that do it. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. HN's core value is intellectual curiosity. That's the first casualty in ideological battle—actually it evaporates before the battle even begins—so we have to be proactive about this. If you'd please read the site guidelines and also https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
Ah, I was afraid of this. I wasn't really intending on starting flame wars or anything. They are just the posts I feel I have something to add. I'll attempt to diversify my comments.
wooter 9y ago
reading through your history there is an obvious bias in who you choose to say this to based on your personal ideology. not to mention your various strictly ideological and political submissions. disappointing as that seems like an abuse of the guidelines and your power.
- dang 9y ago
  People's image of HN mods' political bias is entirely predictable from their own ideological affiliation. Strong rightists think we (and HN itself) lean left, strong leftists think we (and HN) lean right. Since the conclusions you all draw are so contradictory, I don't think these charges have much informational value—at least not about us. There's clearly a cognitive bias at work here. If you don't believe me, here are some quite typical posts that run the contrary direction to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16019694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16019694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15034119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15034119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529468 These people are having the same reaction as you are, they just start from the opposite end of the football field. That doesn't mean we're magic centrists in a centrist fairyland. It means the situation is affected by other factors, some of which aren't obvious. If you want to look at this objectively you have to work to suspend your own political feelings, which is not easy to do and not something many people want to.

stephenboyd 9y ago

There are already walls at the border where it makes sense. Do you want a wall separating Texas from the Rio Grande?

supreme_sublime 9y ago
What I've seen are short fences at best. Barely enough to stop a paraplegic. Gates are possible to build, not to mention a lot of the Rio Grande wouldn't need anything built near it because of the natural geography and the sheer cliffs that are practically unscalable.