4 ms·

> Since 1970 marijuana has been a DEA Schedule I substance, meaning that in the view of the federal government, it’s as dangerous as LSD, heroin, and Ecstasy, a

> Since 1970 marijuana has been a DEA Schedule I substance, meaning that in the view of the federal government, it’s as dangerous as LSD, heroin, and Ecstasy, and has “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” > Every year the percentage of Americans who favor legalization of marijuana climbs. Last year it topped 60 percent for the first time. A remarkable 94 percent support medical use. At this point, why does the United States Government even pretend it represents the will of the people?

mc32 9y ago
>At this point, why does the United States Government even pretend it represents the will of the people? people say that when it's something they disagree with... If the majority of the pop had populist ideas which went contrary to their position, then this "will of the people" is cast as "coarse populism".
GuiA 9y ago
I still have to regularly remind people that Trump did not win the election with a majority of votes. I am flabbergasted by how frequently I hear Americans say of Trump "... well he was chosen by the people".
- jriot 9y ago
  Are aware Lincoln didn't win the election with majority of votes?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Lincoln didn't win the election with majority of votes He did, however, win the popular vote in both the 1860 and 1864 general elections (39.8% to the runner up at 29.5% and 55%, respectively) [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Abraham_Lincoln https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Abraham...
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  He was, in fact, chosen by the people in accordance with our voting system. Both parties win with it, and nobody who's won ever tries to change it... leaving suggesting it's "unfair" to the realm of people who are just upset that they lost. I definitely would like to see it improved, I think the two party system sucks, and our voting system guarantees it, and the fact that my vote doesn't count for much because I live in a blue state annoys me a bit. But the people did, in fact, select Donald Trump to be President. A penalty, that at times, is exactly what our society deserves. :/
  - twright0 9y ago
    > Both parties win with it As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, only five elections have ever been won by someone lacking a plurality of the popular vote. Three of those cases happened before 1900. If we look only at the more modern examples, the Republicans have won the presidency but lost the popular vote twice (2016 and 2000) and the Democrats have never done this. In fact, this is a true statement over all of time, but once you get back more then a century the political parties are so different as to make the comparison meaningless. That is to say: the Democrats have never had a presidential election that they won without winning the popular vote. I do not love the two party system either, but in this case it doesn't feel fair to say that both parties are currently equally benefitting from the Electoral College.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Our electoral college and Senate system is designed to occasionally let the minority get stuff they want. The coastal cities have all the money and all of the media, they aren't hurting for power. The slight tip to the "flyover" states is an attempt to balance the mega-steamroller of coastal wealth and power.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      Yea, and that's not a statistical fluke, either. So long as the political allegiances are close to what they are today, a Democrat will never win without the popular vote. Via our electoral college system, a vote in a lower-populace state will have more power. There's a lot of low populace flyover states that consistently vote Republican. So a Republican winning the popular vote almost automatically leads to them winning the electoral college.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Trump read the rules and was selected by the will of the people as we define it in our electoral system. If plurality of votes was relevant the strategy would have been completely different and so we cannot know the outcome in that case.
- dekhn 9y ago
  The electoral college, like it or not, is the law of the land. I don't think anybody is truly claiming he was chosen by the people- it would be hard to make that argument in good faith given the obvious facts.
2_listerine_pls 9y ago
Another problem is the DEA –an agency who's sole existence depends upon the legal status of drugs– is responsible for determining their status. Such a clear conflict of interests.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Direct democracy for every issue individually is not the best overall system. It prevents the political favor-trading between representatives which has a valuable purpose - that is, voting against your immediate interest on topics unimportant to you in exchange for votes for your important interests. If every vote is independent and there's no way to coordinate things, then you can't do something like getting national healthcare reforms passed at the cost of providing corn subsidies. Furthermore, legalization of cannabis requires more than just saying "okay, it's legal now". There's a ton of unresolved questions: what are the rules around driving high? Who can buy cannabis legally? Which jobs are allowed to be worked high? Which businesses can sell cannabis? What license do you need? What are the penalties for flouting age restrictions on sales? Can you smoke cannabis in a bar? Can you vape cannabis in a restaurant? How is cannabis taxed, and at what rate?
- owlsaway 9y ago
  As someone living in Canada, where we're going through that literal same process, you seem to be right on the money. Although admittedly, I'm not as well-read as I'd hope to be, so take this with a grain of salt. But the way the media I've read has portrayed marijuana in Canada has been "Pot's legal in 1 year! ...okay, how are we going to implement this? [provinces rush to come up with plans]"
- cinquemb 9y ago
  I think it is theoretically possible to build systems where you can coordinate things on independent issues (and for bringing up and addressing questions) on a direct level. I don't think there is much incentive to build such systems now outside of say voting systems for user feedback/issues on product systems (which also have lower barriers as for the ultimately philosophical issue on deciding who is allowed to vote, and face virtually no push back from those who benefit most from the incumbent systems).
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    I'm not sure what sort of mechanism you're thinking of. My example has a majority preferring X & Y over ~X & ~Y, but with simultaneous majorities preferring ~X over X and ~Y over Y. This is fundamentally tricky to resolve. And furthermore, the power to propose "X & Y" is incredibly useful, since you get to shape the negotiation options for compromises. Even with a direct democracy system, you'd still want to be able to vote in or out some kind of elected representative for proposing various bills.

mc32 9y ago

>At this point, why does the United States Government even pretend it represents the will of the people? people say that when it's something they disagree with... If the majority of the pop had populist ideas which went contrary to their position, then this "will of the people" is cast as "coarse populism".

GuiA 9y ago

I still have to regularly remind people that Trump did not win the election with a majority of votes. I am flabbergasted by how frequently I hear Americans say of Trump "... well he was chosen by the people".

jriot 9y ago
Are aware Lincoln didn't win the election with majority of votes?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Lincoln didn't win the election with majority of votes He did, however, win the popular vote in both the 1860 and 1864 general elections (39.8% to the runner up at 29.5% and 55%, respectively) [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Abraham_Lincoln https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Abraham...
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
He was, in fact, chosen by the people in accordance with our voting system. Both parties win with it, and nobody who's won ever tries to change it... leaving suggesting it's "unfair" to the realm of people who are just upset that they lost. I definitely would like to see it improved, I think the two party system sucks, and our voting system guarantees it, and the fact that my vote doesn't count for much because I live in a blue state annoys me a bit. But the people did, in fact, select Donald Trump to be President. A penalty, that at times, is exactly what our society deserves. :/
- twright0 9y ago
  > Both parties win with it As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, only five elections have ever been won by someone lacking a plurality of the popular vote. Three of those cases happened before 1900. If we look only at the more modern examples, the Republicans have won the presidency but lost the popular vote twice (2016 and 2000) and the Democrats have never done this. In fact, this is a true statement over all of time, but once you get back more then a century the political parties are so different as to make the comparison meaningless. That is to say: the Democrats have never had a presidential election that they won without winning the popular vote. I do not love the two party system either, but in this case it doesn't feel fair to say that both parties are currently equally benefitting from the Electoral College.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Our electoral college and Senate system is designed to occasionally let the minority get stuff they want. The coastal cities have all the money and all of the media, they aren't hurting for power. The slight tip to the "flyover" states is an attempt to balance the mega-steamroller of coastal wealth and power.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    Yea, and that's not a statistical fluke, either. So long as the political allegiances are close to what they are today, a Democrat will never win without the popular vote. Via our electoral college system, a vote in a lower-populace state will have more power. There's a lot of low populace flyover states that consistently vote Republican. So a Republican winning the popular vote almost automatically leads to them winning the electoral college.
mulmen 9y ago
Trump read the rules and was selected by the will of the people as we define it in our electoral system. If plurality of votes was relevant the strategy would have been completely different and so we cannot know the outcome in that case.
dekhn 9y ago
The electoral college, like it or not, is the law of the land. I don't think anybody is truly claiming he was chosen by the people- it would be hard to make that argument in good faith given the obvious facts.

2_listerine_pls 9y ago

Another problem is the DEA –an agency who's sole existence depends upon the legal status of drugs– is responsible for determining their status. Such a clear conflict of interests.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

Direct democracy for every issue individually is not the best overall system. It prevents the political favor-trading between representatives which has a valuable purpose - that is, voting against your immediate interest on topics unimportant to you in exchange for votes for your important interests. If every vote is independent and there's no way to coordinate things, then you can't do something like getting national healthcare reforms passed at the cost of providing corn subsidies. Furthermore, legalization of cannabis requires more than just saying "okay, it's legal now". There's a ton of unresolved questions: what are the rules around driving high? Who can buy cannabis legally? Which jobs are allowed to be worked high? Which businesses can sell cannabis? What license do you need? What are the penalties for flouting age restrictions on sales? Can you smoke cannabis in a bar? Can you vape cannabis in a restaurant? How is cannabis taxed, and at what rate?

owlsaway 9y ago
As someone living in Canada, where we're going through that literal same process, you seem to be right on the money. Although admittedly, I'm not as well-read as I'd hope to be, so take this with a grain of salt. But the way the media I've read has portrayed marijuana in Canada has been "Pot's legal in 1 year! ...okay, how are we going to implement this? [provinces rush to come up with plans]"
cinquemb 9y ago
I think it is theoretically possible to build systems where you can coordinate things on independent issues (and for bringing up and addressing questions) on a direct level. I don't think there is much incentive to build such systems now outside of say voting systems for user feedback/issues on product systems (which also have lower barriers as for the ultimately philosophical issue on deciding who is allowed to vote, and face virtually no push back from those who benefit most from the incumbent systems).
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  I'm not sure what sort of mechanism you're thinking of. My example has a majority preferring X & Y over ~X & ~Y, but with simultaneous majorities preferring ~X over X and ~Y over Y. This is fundamentally tricky to resolve. And furthermore, the power to propose "X & Y" is incredibly useful, since you get to shape the negotiation options for compromises. Even with a direct democracy system, you'd still want to be able to vote in or out some kind of elected representative for proposing various bills.