9 ms·

Wyden Introduces S. 420 to Legalize Cannabis

111 points by markovbot 8y ago

lsiebert 8y ago
So the companion bill to HR 420 introduced last month, but in the Republican controlled Senate? Not really much newsworthy here.
- briandear 8y ago
  This isn’t a partisan issue. Diane Feinstein, for example opposed California’s legalization in 2016 and has opposed it at the federal level. Rand Paul supports legalization (or at least leaving the decision to the states. Democrats owned the legislative and executive branches a few years back and yet didn’t legalize. The point is that politicians in both parties have opposed and supported legalization. This, however, is an issue that could be bipartisan similar to Trump’s prison reform bill. As a conservative myself, legalization is at the very heart of a philosophy of limited government; for liberals, this issue is a chance to actually be liberal. Unfortunately true conservatism and actual liberalism have lost all meaning. Now it’s just tribes trying to “win.”
  - carlivar 8y ago
    Precisely. Ron Paul (R) and Barney Frank (D) introduced a legalization bill in 2011 which didn't get anywhere. https://www.thestreet.com/story/12789013/1/ron-paul-barney-frank-introduce-pot-legalization-bill.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/12789013/1/ron-paul-barney-f...
  - learc83 8y ago
    You're correct that there are Republicans who support legalization, and there are Democrats who are against it. But if you look at the demographics of who supports legalization, it's clear which party will eventually pass legislation to legalize. Republicans are increasingly dependant on their aging, white base, and that's the exact demographic that still supports prohibition. The Republican party as a whole has no reason to support legalization until they decide to try to broaden their appeal, which exactly what they planned on doing after their defeat in 2012. But the rise of Trump changed that. Look at who Trump appointed as his first Attorney General--a man who pined for the Reagan era war on drugs--a man who urged prosecutors to use the death penalty to fight drug trafficking. If they lose in 2020 and decide to rebrand, who knows, but as of right now there is no chance of a Republican Senate passing legalisation, and I think a small but non-zero chance that a Democratic Senate would.
    - powerslacker 8y ago
      I think you may be underestimating how much value conservatives place on improving the economy. Legalizing the marijuana market on the federal level will create a gold rush in the financial markets. New tax sources, new jobs, stacks of hidden money being deposited in banking institutions, marijuana securities, licensing fees -- all brought in by a relatively safe drug. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill gets passed.
      - camel_Snake 8y ago
        How many conservative states have legalized cannabis? I find pragmatism rare in politics.
    - blackflame7000 8y ago
      It's safe to say that Trump regretted his AG pick almost immediately and frankly, Sessions isn't that popular among conservatives. Also Trump has come out in support of ending a federal ban https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/08/donald-trump-likely-support-bill-end-federal-pot-ban-cory-gardner-elizabeth-warren/685997002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/08/dona...
      - learc83 8y ago
        >It's safe to say that Trump regretted his AG pick almost immediatel Yes because he recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, not because of his drug policies. >and frankly, Sessions isn't that popular among conservatives. Only because Trump spent time attacking him for recusing himself, not because of his drug policies. >Also Trump has come out in support of ending a federal ban Trump also signaled that he was going to sign the spending bill before he shut down the government for 33 days. He signaled that he was will to accept money for his wall to made DACA permanent. He's changed his position on H-1Bs at least 3 times. He comes out in support of a lot of things, because he speaks off the cuff, and changes his mind often. His public statements are so loosely correlated with his future actions that with the exception of a few topics where he's been consistent, I mostly ignore any statement that doesn't include an executive order or a signature on a bill.
jMyles 8y ago
The (now obviously intentional) repeated use of 420 as a bill number is perhaps a new and interesting phenomenon. As an homage to counterculture in the current political climate, it is quite unusual, right?
- byron_fast 8y ago
  Do bills need clickbaity names to get attention?
  - chisleu 8y ago
    You don't sound like a P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (act)
  - briandear 8y ago
    Considering many Americans struggle to name the Vice President or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: yes. I would bet more people could quote lyrics from a Drake song than remember a single sentence in the Declaration of Independece.
  - Fezzik 8y ago
    They may not need them but, more and more, “witty” acronyms are being used for bills. Apparently the wordsmiths of Capital Hill have oodles of time for Scrabble-like playtime: https://noahveltman.com/acronyms/ https://noahveltman.com/acronyms/ And my favorite, the COVFEFE ACT... just because... it’s funny: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-acronyms-titles-trump-congress-covfefe-act-2017-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-acronyms-titles-trump-c...
    - abakker 8y ago
      I don’t think I’ve hear it anywhere else but a guy at work calluses these kind of things “retronyms” for retroactive acronyms. Maybe more common in enterprise tech marketing than law.
      - hopler 8y ago
jalgos_eminator 8y ago
Can we just do this already? Nobody these days has a genuine argument as to why cannabis should still be illegal to grow and posses. Honestly if there's one thing that Trump could do to win a teeny bit of respect from liberals it would be to actually legalize cannabis, either by de-scheduling or signing legislation given to him by congress.
- strken 8y ago
  There are some studies suggesting that legalisation may have increased the number of auto accidents by 3-6%[0], which doesn't sound like a lot but is equal to quite a few deaths. I don't know if this argument is correct, but it at least seems genuine to me. [0] e.g. https://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/documents/masterfiledocs.ashx?id=2173 https://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/documents/masterfiledocs....
  - throwaway415415 8y ago
    We could do with less cars, the numbers of death without drugs is insanely high already. People already drive drunk because there is no good public transport. I’m sure uber/lyft must have decrease road accidents immensly.
  - carlivar 8y ago
    Are you talking about the legalization of alcohol in 1933? The number seems low.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    Even if true, that's still minor compared to the millions of lives destroyed in the War On Drugs.
    - carlivar 8y ago
      You mean the War On Some Drugs
  - learc83 8y ago
    That study also cited a previous study that found no statistically significant increase. And since this increase was so small, I'd be very sceptical until more research is done, particularly because of the amount of variables that need to be controlled for when comparing crash rates between states. We're only talking about 3 states and a few years here. Not to mention changes caused by selective legalization that wouldn't be the case if it was legal everywhere (higher risk drivers moving to legal states, because of legalization for instance). Also the study was police reported crashes not fatal crashes. If legal pot causes a 6% increase in fatal crashes that's worth serious consideration, if it's a 6% increase in fender benders, not so much.
offbytwo 8y ago
Marijuana taxes are obscene and immoral. I pay 30-40% on a plant that has medicinal properties in Colorado. The whole "sin" tax on marijuana makes no sense. God forbid this gets set at a Federal level.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  They are indeed immoral. They are also deeply irrational. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUEwtHhEaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUEwtHhEaQ
jkmcf 8y ago
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, while being pro legalization, they really need to ratchet down on how it happens and where it’s allowed. In Denver and other CO areas, it seems there are weed shops on every corner, and it reeks like tobacco, though less offensively. My hope is in 10 years or so the hype has died down...

111 points by markovbot 8y ago

So the companion bill to HR 420 introduced last month, but in the Republican controlled Senate? Not really much newsworthy here.

briandear 8y ago
This isn’t a partisan issue. Diane Feinstein, for example opposed California’s legalization in 2016 and has opposed it at the federal level. Rand Paul supports legalization (or at least leaving the decision to the states. Democrats owned the legislative and executive branches a few years back and yet didn’t legalize. The point is that politicians in both parties have opposed and supported legalization. This, however, is an issue that could be bipartisan similar to Trump’s prison reform bill. As a conservative myself, legalization is at the very heart of a philosophy of limited government; for liberals, this issue is a chance to actually be liberal. Unfortunately true conservatism and actual liberalism have lost all meaning. Now it’s just tribes trying to “win.”
- carlivar 8y ago
  Precisely. Ron Paul (R) and Barney Frank (D) introduced a legalization bill in 2011 which didn't get anywhere. https://www.thestreet.com/story/12789013/1/ron-paul-barney-frank-introduce-pot-legalization-bill.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/12789013/1/ron-paul-barney-f...
- learc83 8y ago
  You're correct that there are Republicans who support legalization, and there are Democrats who are against it. But if you look at the demographics of who supports legalization, it's clear which party will eventually pass legislation to legalize. Republicans are increasingly dependant on their aging, white base, and that's the exact demographic that still supports prohibition. The Republican party as a whole has no reason to support legalization until they decide to try to broaden their appeal, which exactly what they planned on doing after their defeat in 2012. But the rise of Trump changed that. Look at who Trump appointed as his first Attorney General--a man who pined for the Reagan era war on drugs--a man who urged prosecutors to use the death penalty to fight drug trafficking. If they lose in 2020 and decide to rebrand, who knows, but as of right now there is no chance of a Republican Senate passing legalisation, and I think a small but non-zero chance that a Democratic Senate would.
  - powerslacker 8y ago
    I think you may be underestimating how much value conservatives place on improving the economy. Legalizing the marijuana market on the federal level will create a gold rush in the financial markets. New tax sources, new jobs, stacks of hidden money being deposited in banking institutions, marijuana securities, licensing fees -- all brought in by a relatively safe drug. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill gets passed.
    - camel_Snake 8y ago
      How many conservative states have legalized cannabis? I find pragmatism rare in politics.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    It's safe to say that Trump regretted his AG pick almost immediately and frankly, Sessions isn't that popular among conservatives. Also Trump has come out in support of ending a federal ban https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/08/donald-trump-likely-support-bill-end-federal-pot-ban-cory-gardner-elizabeth-warren/685997002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/08/dona...
    - learc83 8y ago
      >It's safe to say that Trump regretted his AG pick almost immediatel Yes because he recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, not because of his drug policies. >and frankly, Sessions isn't that popular among conservatives. Only because Trump spent time attacking him for recusing himself, not because of his drug policies. >Also Trump has come out in support of ending a federal ban Trump also signaled that he was going to sign the spending bill before he shut down the government for 33 days. He signaled that he was will to accept money for his wall to made DACA permanent. He's changed his position on H-1Bs at least 3 times. He comes out in support of a lot of things, because he speaks off the cuff, and changes his mind often. His public statements are so loosely correlated with his future actions that with the exception of a few topics where he's been consistent, I mostly ignore any statement that doesn't include an executive order or a signature on a bill.

jMyles 8y ago

The (now obviously intentional) repeated use of 420 as a bill number is perhaps a new and interesting phenomenon. As an homage to counterculture in the current political climate, it is quite unusual, right?

byron_fast 8y ago
Do bills need clickbaity names to get attention?
- chisleu 8y ago
  You don't sound like a P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (act)
- briandear 8y ago
  Considering many Americans struggle to name the Vice President or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: yes. I would bet more people could quote lyrics from a Drake song than remember a single sentence in the Declaration of Independece.
- Fezzik 8y ago
  They may not need them but, more and more, “witty” acronyms are being used for bills. Apparently the wordsmiths of Capital Hill have oodles of time for Scrabble-like playtime: https://noahveltman.com/acronyms/ https://noahveltman.com/acronyms/ And my favorite, the COVFEFE ACT... just because... it’s funny: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-acronyms-titles-trump-congress-covfefe-act-2017-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-acronyms-titles-trump-c...
  - abakker 8y ago
    I don’t think I’ve hear it anywhere else but a guy at work calluses these kind of things “retronyms” for retroactive acronyms. Maybe more common in enterprise tech marketing than law.
    - hopler 8y ago

jalgos_eminator 8y ago

Can we just do this already? Nobody these days has a genuine argument as to why cannabis should still be illegal to grow and posses. Honestly if there's one thing that Trump could do to win a teeny bit of respect from liberals it would be to actually legalize cannabis, either by de-scheduling or signing legislation given to him by congress.

strken 8y ago
There are some studies suggesting that legalisation may have increased the number of auto accidents by 3-6%[0], which doesn't sound like a lot but is equal to quite a few deaths. I don't know if this argument is correct, but it at least seems genuine to me. [0] e.g. https://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/documents/masterfiledocs.ashx?id=2173 https://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/documents/masterfiledocs....
- throwaway415415 8y ago
  We could do with less cars, the numbers of death without drugs is insanely high already. People already drive drunk because there is no good public transport. I’m sure uber/lyft must have decrease road accidents immensly.
- carlivar 8y ago
  Are you talking about the legalization of alcohol in 1933? The number seems low.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  Even if true, that's still minor compared to the millions of lives destroyed in the War On Drugs.
  - carlivar 8y ago
    You mean the War On Some Drugs
- learc83 8y ago
  That study also cited a previous study that found no statistically significant increase. And since this increase was so small, I'd be very sceptical until more research is done, particularly because of the amount of variables that need to be controlled for when comparing crash rates between states. We're only talking about 3 states and a few years here. Not to mention changes caused by selective legalization that wouldn't be the case if it was legal everywhere (higher risk drivers moving to legal states, because of legalization for instance). Also the study was police reported crashes not fatal crashes. If legal pot causes a 6% increase in fatal crashes that's worth serious consideration, if it's a 6% increase in fender benders, not so much.

offbytwo 8y ago

Marijuana taxes are obscene and immoral. I pay 30-40% on a plant that has medicinal properties in Colorado. The whole "sin" tax on marijuana makes no sense. God forbid this gets set at a Federal level.

ur-whale 8y ago
They are indeed immoral. They are also deeply irrational. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUEwtHhEaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUEwtHhEaQ

jkmcf 8y ago

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, while being pro legalization, they really need to ratchet down on how it happens and where it’s allowed. In Denver and other CO areas, it seems there are weed shops on every corner, and it reeks like tobacco, though less offensively. My hope is in 10 years or so the hype has died down...