5 ms·

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

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. If there was a nationwide referendum on legalizing (not just decriminalizing) it would pass in a landslide today. Instead, congress will dither on this issue for probably the next five years at minimum. 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.

grecy 6y ago
> 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?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > 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.
C19is20 6y ago
...but, but, but. I voted.
titzer 6y ago
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.
curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> ...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.
- jfengel 6y ago
  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.
- qw3rty01 6y ago
  It's not just an echo chamber, there's actual data: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx 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.
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    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.
BunsanSpace 6y ago
Given the UN has officially recognized it as medicine, I don't think it would be too much of an issue.
jfengel 6y ago
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.
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  Name them. The reason weed will not be legalized in America with this bill is solely, and only, the fault of Republicans
  - a_wild_dandan 6y ago
    Precisely. Republicans refuse to hold a vote for dozens of life changing bills. This is currently the abject failure of a single party.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      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.
lukifer 6y ago
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.
panda-giddiness 6y ago
> 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.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > 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.
  - prossercj 6y ago
    > this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual Why do you believe that history takes sides?
    - weedahol 6y ago
      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.
jacques_chester 6y ago
> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases
- mullingitover 6y ago
  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.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    Gotcha.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> 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.

grecy 6y ago

> 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?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> 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.

C19is20 6y ago

...but, but, but. I voted.

titzer 6y ago

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.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago

> ...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.

jfengel 6y ago
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.
qw3rty01 6y ago
It's not just an echo chamber, there's actual data: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx 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.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  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.

BunsanSpace 6y ago

Given the UN has officially recognized it as medicine, I don't think it would be too much of an issue.

jfengel 6y ago

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.

mrguyorama 6y ago
Name them. The reason weed will not be legalized in America with this bill is solely, and only, the fault of Republicans
- a_wild_dandan 6y ago
  Precisely. Republicans refuse to hold a vote for dozens of life changing bills. This is currently the abject failure of a single party.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    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.

lukifer 6y ago

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.

panda-giddiness 6y ago

> 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.

mullingitover 6y ago
> 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.
- prossercj 6y ago
  > this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual Why do you believe that history takes sides?
  - weedahol 6y ago
    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.

jacques_chester 6y ago

> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Money_Cases

mullingitover 6y ago
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.
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  Gotcha.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> 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.