3 ms·

How does this change my point? It's been almost a decade since 2010. Why do people still get locked up for marijuana possession? Why can't I get my medicine and

How does this change my point? It's been almost a decade since 2010. Why do people still get locked up for marijuana possession? Why can't I get my medicine and not risk spending life in a prison cell? What does it even mean to be democracy if a majority of the public believes in getting rid of something that destroys thousands of citizens every year but the government doesn't get rid of it for 9 years. As recent as a few weeks ago, federal MMJ (medical MJ) bills were discarded.

rayiner 8y ago
Living in a democracy doesn't mean that the government reacts instantly to changes in public opinion that take place after many decades of the opposite view. Our federal system complicates things even more. Drug possession is prosecuted at the state level, not the federal level (as opposed to trafficking, which is handled at the federal level). Almost all the places where the majority of people support legalizing marijuana have already decriminalized or legalized possession. There are half a dozen marijuana shops in the Oregon town here my mother in law lives. Here in DC, there are intersections where the smell of marijuana is incredibly strong. (E.g. near the Chipotle on 5th & L.) That has taken a lot of wind out of efforts to legalize marijuana at the federal level. State legalization has also changed what pushing for federal legalization means. Making marijuana legal at the federal level would eliminate federal support for the remaining states where people want to keep marijuana illegal. And it would enable the development of inter-state marijuana businesses, which even people who support legalization don't necessarily support.
tptacek 8y ago
In the last two cycles, voters in Missouri, North Dakota, and Arizona defeated statewide marijuana initiatives. What would it mean to be a democracy if the majority of voters in a state believes in cannabis prohibition and the federal government overrules them?
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Not that I agree with this argument necessarily but there are lots of issues we’ve determined are out of bounds for states to determine. I’d go so far as to say that where that line is, is the central question of modern American liberalism. Another way to frame that is, you’ve reduced to snark a central question of our time.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I don't think I'm being snarky. We have dry counties in the US. Why would it be weird to have places where cannabis is illegal, if the locals want it that way? Ultimately, I just think Rayiner has a good point about cannabis being a terrible example of the government being unresponsive.
    - kasey_junk 8y ago
      I don't think it's weird for there to be places with illegal cannabis. I just don't think the 'locals want it' is a valid end of the debate. For instance we know that inconsistent enforcement of drug laws is a civil rights issue. You could frame an argument against local choice fairly coherently on that point.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I feel like it is the end of the responsiveness debate. I don't like dry counties, either! I drink like a fish!

rayiner 8y ago

Living in a democracy doesn't mean that the government reacts instantly to changes in public opinion that take place after many decades of the opposite view. Our federal system complicates things even more. Drug possession is prosecuted at the state level, not the federal level (as opposed to trafficking, which is handled at the federal level). Almost all the places where the majority of people support legalizing marijuana have already decriminalized or legalized possession. There are half a dozen marijuana shops in the Oregon town here my mother in law lives. Here in DC, there are intersections where the smell of marijuana is incredibly strong. (E.g. near the Chipotle on 5th & L.) That has taken a lot of wind out of efforts to legalize marijuana at the federal level. State legalization has also changed what pushing for federal legalization means. Making marijuana legal at the federal level would eliminate federal support for the remaining states where people want to keep marijuana illegal. And it would enable the development of inter-state marijuana businesses, which even people who support legalization don't necessarily support.

tptacek 8y ago

In the last two cycles, voters in Missouri, North Dakota, and Arizona defeated statewide marijuana initiatives. What would it mean to be a democracy if the majority of voters in a state believes in cannabis prohibition and the federal government overrules them?

kasey_junk 8y ago
Not that I agree with this argument necessarily but there are lots of issues we’ve determined are out of bounds for states to determine. I’d go so far as to say that where that line is, is the central question of modern American liberalism. Another way to frame that is, you’ve reduced to snark a central question of our time.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I don't think I'm being snarky. We have dry counties in the US. Why would it be weird to have places where cannabis is illegal, if the locals want it that way? Ultimately, I just think Rayiner has a good point about cannabis being a terrible example of the government being unresponsive.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    I don't think it's weird for there to be places with illegal cannabis. I just don't think the 'locals want it' is a valid end of the debate. For instance we know that inconsistent enforcement of drug laws is a civil rights issue. You could frame an argument against local choice fairly coherently on that point.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I feel like it is the end of the responsiveness debate. I don't like dry counties, either! I drink like a fish!