10 ms·

Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal

86 points by undefined1 5y ago

wwweston 5y ago
I've supported legalization efforts in two states. But I kindof have regrets, now. And in fact, if I were in charge, I might leave it as an infraction. I don't really want it to be illegal, but as far as I can tell, the same thing that happens to cigarette smokers happens to weed smokers: perspective on the fact that smoking is the atmospheric equivalent of peeing in the pool is lost. And I wake up like I did last night at 1:30am having had a neighbor opt me into the experience via my open window next to the patio. Yay, personal liberty. I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, but please, figure out a way to keep it personal.
- CardenB 5y ago
  You want weed to be illegal because you don't like the smell of the smoke?
  - kapp_in_life 5y ago
    It sounds more likely they would like it to be illegal for one to force others to be subject to second hand smoke.
    - wwweston 5y ago
      Correct. As I wrote in my earlier comment, I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, as long as it's kept personal and I don't get opted in to anyone's smoking choices.
    - CardenB 5y ago
      Ah I see. I feel that it's unreasonable to equate second hand marijuana smoke with second hand tobacco. It's really hard to consume weed to the same extent as tobacco, so the smoke is in much lower quantity.
- 01100011 5y ago
  That existed before legalization. The only difference is now you can't tie up precious law enforcement resources because of unfavorable air currents. You can still appeal to your city or landlord. They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    > That existed before legalization. The frequency of occurrence has absolutely changed, which in retrospect seems to be exactly what you should expect. > They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable. You know, I was a little worried that my comment about people losing perspective on the impacts of their habit might have been an overgeneralization (I certainly do know some people who are more circumspect about it), but thank you for volunteering to demonstrate exactly how it works. If my "level of suffering" at being involuntarily opted into someone else's smoking choices is inconsequential, then surely their entirely voluntary choice to engage in it is inconsequential too, and their level of suffering at any requirement to forgo it should be inconsequential. "I enjoy this and so I don't have to worry about whether it annoys or distresses anyone else" is no basis for social reasoning.
- jshawl 5y ago
  Is there another window in your house you can open so that the airflow comes in from the other side of the house?
  - wwweston 5y ago
    There are literally no other windows in my apartment except those adjoining this shared patio.
- paxys 5y ago
  Do you honestly believe there was no one smoking pot in your apartment building before it was legal?
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  This is a pretty silly way to think about the issue. Loud music, dogs barking, kids running around on the floor above you, smoke of any kind, a bed frame hitting the wall repeatedly. I wouldn't rethink the legal status of music, dogs or children because of some bad neighbors.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    Noise ordinances are absolutely a thing, and common. Smoke ordinances would be at least that reasonable.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      Yes, that would be very reasonable. The current status of cannabis as a schedule 1 substance is a completely different subject.
1cvmask 5y ago
Majority of Americans support Medicare for All. But both parties are against it. Marijuana legalization is easier to pass than healthcare because there are no entrenched corporate interests against it: https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi...
- jacob2484 5y ago
  Majority of Americans do NOT support Medicare for All. Please reread your article - they want a public option, which differs from Medicare.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > they want a public option, which differs from Medicare. Medicare is a system by which (currently, a subset) of Americans may select[0] either publicly subsidized private health plans or a purely-public[1] option. The difference between this and the ACA plus a public option is...not that much. [0] well, except for many Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligibles, for which a single plan (often fully-publicly-subsized private) covering both programs is selected for them by their state. [1] actually administered by regional private contractors under federal rules.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      Medicare is a specific example of a system. Just because Americans are overwhelmingly thirsty does not mean they want to drink pineapple juice.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    I think a lot of Americans want neither.
    - glennvtx 5y ago
      People don't know what they want, or rather, they know what they don't want, and it is what we currently have. "most" Americans would like a reasonably priced open market for healthcare, not the currently entrenched healthcare monopolies. Going any control over healthcare to this government is foolish, has already resulted in what we have today.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
paxys 5y ago
> This is particularly the case among adults ages 75 and older: Just 32% say marijuana should be legal for recreational and medical use, by far the lowest share for any age category and 21 percentage points lower than adults in the next-oldest age group Sadly most elected officials fall in these age groups. Legalizing weed at the Federal level will be a huge win even in states that have already done so. The industry has a very hard time dealing with banking, credit card payments, advertising etc. right now.
- iaw 5y ago
  Not entirely true: " The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 57.6 years; of Senators, 62.9 years." [0] [0] https://guides.loc.gov/116th-congress-book-list https://guides.loc.gov/116th-congress-book-list
  - paxys 5y ago
    Older members of congress wield significantly more power though by way of seniority and committee memberships. Joe Biden (President) - 78 Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) - 81 Steny Hoyer (House Majority Leader) - 81 Jim Clyburn (House Majority Whip) - 80 Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) - 70 Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader) - 79 Patrick Leahy (President pro tempore) - 81 Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) - 76 Most committee chairs/ranking members are 70+ These are the people running the country. A 30 year old first term congresswoman has next to zero influence in matters like this one.
  - nprz 5y ago
    And interestingly, that number has been steeply increasing since 1980 https://i.imgur.com/6eiPP3z.jpg https://i.imgur.com/6eiPP3z.jpg
sneak 5y ago
It bothers me that this needs to be done piecemeal, substance by substance. Our bodies are our own to build - they are own to destroy (or alter, or any other damn thing). The whole point of the war on drugs was to imprison minorities. The whole concept of drug prohibition should be done away with. Millions of people are sitting in prison in the US simply because they did something entirely consensual and nonviolent, engaging in a willing transaction with an adult, and victimized no one. The idea that you can't put whatever you want into your own body is diametrically opposed to the desire for personal liberty for which the US is known.
- viraptor 5y ago
  They could be our own to destroy if that didn't impact people around you. It's the same with DUI - causing a crash doesn't only destroy your life. Or getting addicted to the point you can't care for your children.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Your response illustrates my point nicely: Drunk driving is illegal; alcohol possession and sale is not, nor should it be. Child abuse and neglect is already illegal, regardless of drug laws.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      We don't have a good comparison right now... because allowing a good computation is considered a bad idea. Selling alcohol to people who obviously are going to drink and drive, people who are aggressive and drink is restricted in some places though. The issue is that we expect most people to have a drink once in a whole and continue with their lives as usual. We can't realistically expect recreational heroin use with no long term issues.
      - sneak 5y ago
        We also can't realistically expect recreational alcohol use with no long-term issues either: alcohol kills about 100k people per year in the USA. That's not a reason to ban it. The issues are caused by the user, to the user. If users are causing issues to others (violence, theft, drunk driving, et c), those are separate and already-illegal things that can and should be enforced. Arresting people for possession is basically like arresting them for pre-crime: "some other people who possessed similar things later went on to commit actual crimes, so you go to jail out of fear" is not a sane approach. The possession and use of substances for the human body is plainly the wrong place to legislate: the war on drugs in the US has been a costly, racist, unmitigated disaster.
ianai 5y ago
I come to it from the view of prohibition being a known source of power for cartels. I suspect if the various prohibitions were relaxed enough (and safely) that cartels would lose a lot power. Could see less immigrants fleeing cartel violence? But I fear legalization too. I fear people taking it too far and forcing a backlash and a new prohibition.
- astrea 5y ago
  They're not just smuggling Marijuana and that's assuming they're not already deeply entrenched in their localities.
  - asdff 5y ago
    Even in California, the cartel is still active in the grey market. As long as the legal option remains dramatically more expensive than grey market, and how couldn't it with sometimes a >30% tax rate, there will be a grey market.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    Sure but organized crime runs on profit margins, and study after study has shown that by and large organized crime can't fund itself without the profits from drug running. Nothing else is as lucrative, and most secondary markets they get involved in tend to be to supply things the criminals want - i.e. guns and sex trafficking. There is a bizarre trend in these conversations to make a defeatist argument along the lines of "the cartels can never be stopped" that doesn't seem to line up with any of the actual evidence. For example, gun running into the US just isn't a thing - gun smuggling is what organized crime takes out of the US - but the money needs to be USD to pay for it, and ultimately Mexico just doesn't have a lot of that without drugs.
- paxys 5y ago
  What even is taking marijuana "too far"? It has been legal for >66% of the country in some form for many years now, and society has not descended into chaos.
undefined1 5y ago
majority support, and democrats have control of the three branches of government. what's the hold up in getting it legalized?
- paxys 5y ago
  1. Senate filibuster rules 2. Having zero spare votes (there is usually at least one Democrat senator, like Manchin, opposed to everything)
ALittleLight 5y ago
The biggest change I noticed with respect to legalization is that it used to be the case that you couldn't walk around the streets of downtown Seattle without being offered weed by street vendors, and sometimes other drugs. After legalization and marijuana stores the street vendors (at least those I encountered) basically disappeared.
- chenzhekl 5y ago
  That is not a good reason I think. It sounds like we should legalize something because we already have no control of it.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    If you can't effectively prohibit something you probably shouldn't try. Otherwise you're wasting resources and eroding goodwill towards law enforcement which will be involved in fighting something that people really want to do.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    It implies that it would be difficult for legalization to make the situation worse if you already have no control of it. And as noted: legalization improved the situation substantially.
GeekyBear 5y ago
Oddly, Biden is a bigger holdout against full legalization than Congress. >Biden’s blunt opposition to marijuana legalization https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalization-schumer-polls https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalizati...
- paxys 5y ago
  Funny enough in this case how Kamala Harris feels might be more important, since she'll likely cast the deciding vote in the Senate. I can't see Biden vetoing the legalization bill if it passes both chambers, regardless of his personal views.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    Typically, the Vice President will follow the President's agenda, regardless of how they personally feel. I'm sure she'll offer her views privately and then follow the President's lead publicly, just as Biden did when he opposed Obama's Afghanistan surge and remaining there forever. However, on this issue, a group of Republicans and Democrats have been renewing a ban on using Federal dollars to prosecute individuals for pot in states where it is legal since the Obama years, regardless of which party controls the Senate.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > However, on this issue, a group of Republicans and Democrats have been renewing a ban on using Federal dollars to prosecute individuals for pot in states where it is legal since the Obama years, regardless of which party controls the Senate. Only where the use is consistent with state law limited to medical use; the House tried to expand that to include state law covering non-medical use in 2019 and 2020, but in both cases this change was not included in matching Senate bills and not restored in reconciliation of the bills.
  - chmod600 5y ago
    Why do you think the Senate will tie?
chenzhekl 5y ago
Are there any goods to legalize marijuana? If there had been a chance, I would have voted to ban cigarettes as well.
- Nbox9 5y ago
  Tax revenue, reduced use of law enforcement resources, increased personal liberty.
person_of_color 5y ago
I am interested in the devil's advocate to current trend of Marijuana legalisation. _EVERY_ discourse on the internet (besides religious cranks it seems) tends to favour legalisation. If something is too good to be true, then it is. There could be a significant population who are risk of adverse outcomes, especially 18-24 users whose brains are still developing.
protomyth 5y ago
I still don't understand how DUI is going to work? The testing doesn't seem to have kept up with the desires of the public.
- chmod600 5y ago
  Do we have the science to know how safe/unsafe it is to drive under the influence of marijuana?
  - Balgair 5y ago
    There have been a few studies out of CO that I can't find at the moment. The gist is that it's less safe than being sober, but a bit more safe than driving drunk. Unfortunately, the real finding is that combining the two is a lot less safe than either on their own and that a lot of drivers are choosing to cross-fade.
- paxys 5y ago
  I don't think anyone has been able to conclusively say that marijuana legalization actually increases the percentage of smokers in any state where it has been implemented.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    I really don't care about the increase. I care about disproving / proving DUI in court. Without a valid blood test / breath test and some standards, its going to be a rough go. As to if high people are bad drivers, then yes they are. I don't even know how that's a debate. What constitutes high is the real debate.
    - paxys 5y ago
      My point is that all of this is already a problem. Legalization will, if nothing else, make it easier to conduct research and get funding to fix some of this.
chmod600 5y ago
It is becoming increasingly hard to justify a prohibition on gun ownership due to marijuana use. These two issues will clash soon.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  How are the two issues related at all?
  - chmod600 5y ago
    If you use marijuana, you either need to lie on the form required to buy a gun, or the gun store won't sell it to you. Also, in theory, if you have a gun and use marijuana, you are a prohibited person in possession of a gun, which is a serious crime.
alexose 5y ago
I found myself wondering why we can’t just pass popular legislation as individual clean bills. In a climate where two thirds of Americans support a wealth tax, why not simply send a wealth tax to the Senate and see what happens? The answer, unfortunately, lies in the many layers upon layers of ‘dealmaking’ that happens in congress that lead to popular bills being bundled with less popular ones. Combined with the trend of trying to pass everything through reconciliation, it means that we almost never get to see congress legislate individual issues. That’s a shame. In software, we’d recognize this all-or-nothing approach as bad practice. It would be no surprise why nothing ever gets done, and we’d make a new process that favors incremental improvements.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  > Combined with the trend of trying to pass everything through reconciliation, it means that we almost never get to see congress legislate individual issues. Having to go through budget reconciliation is another symptom of the same problem. The filibuster used to get used very infrequently. Now that the parties have clearly sorted themselves there is actually less cross-party dealmaking, instead everything has to go through reconciliation which also requires that bills get changed to fit the requirements of budget reconciliation. It's just another outcome of our hyperpartisanship. The hyperpartisanship and two-party system is also the reason why even popular legislation cannot pass. If it passes it's a win for the governing party. If it doesn't it gets held against the government party because they should be in control. If they cannot get it done it gets blamed on them bring weak. So why would the opposition allow passing even popular legislation? McConnell explained this very openly and clearly.
wcchandler 5y ago
I’m fairly convinced we’re only about 5-10 acquisitions away from cannabis becoming legal via the legislative branch. There’s 3 larges sectors that are still holdouts. Healthcare, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Healthcare will never flip because there’s almost no revenue for them. The only thing they might be able to do is partner with Bayer and license/patent specific strains. Tobacco exists because it’s addictive. CBD and hemp already offer sedative natural alternatives that are healthier and safer for the consumer. If you find anybody taking Wellbutrin or any drug that can cessate the nicotine withdrawal, they can easily kick the habit via cold turkey, or substitution. Finally the last big industry is alcohol. I could talk about this pivot for hours but ultimately, look at what AB/InBev is doing. What have they poured millions of r&d into lately? Seltzer drinks. Edibles are expected to be the largest growth segment of the legal cannabis industry for the next 10 years. I already see it in various circles. Seltzer drinks are easily the next step for the alcohol industry. The issue now is how are these cards going to fall. Will they try to pace their way and drop tons of r&d into the legalization/testing efforts or will they try to leverage all of the existing infrastructure that exists in the legal cannabis industry? That’s why I think we’re only about 5-10 acquisitions away from finding the answer. And once we have the answer, legalization will easily fall afterward. Edit to add: Biden is doing a great job but this wasn’t one of his bullet points. He might have a difference of opinion. He might pursue something at the federal level. But I’m not counting on it. I fully believe that if these acquisitions happen before 2022 we’ll see it on ballots.

86 points by undefined1 5y ago

I've supported legalization efforts in two states. But I kindof have regrets, now. And in fact, if I were in charge, I might leave it as an infraction. I don't really want it to be illegal, but as far as I can tell, the same thing that happens to cigarette smokers happens to weed smokers: perspective on the fact that smoking is the atmospheric equivalent of peeing in the pool is lost. And I wake up like I did last night at 1:30am having had a neighbor opt me into the experience via my open window next to the patio. Yay, personal liberty. I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, but please, figure out a way to keep it personal.

CardenB 5y ago
You want weed to be illegal because you don't like the smell of the smoke?
- kapp_in_life 5y ago
  It sounds more likely they would like it to be illegal for one to force others to be subject to second hand smoke.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    Correct. As I wrote in my earlier comment, I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, as long as it's kept personal and I don't get opted in to anyone's smoking choices.
  - CardenB 5y ago
    Ah I see. I feel that it's unreasonable to equate second hand marijuana smoke with second hand tobacco. It's really hard to consume weed to the same extent as tobacco, so the smoke is in much lower quantity.
01100011 5y ago
That existed before legalization. The only difference is now you can't tie up precious law enforcement resources because of unfavorable air currents. You can still appeal to your city or landlord. They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > That existed before legalization. The frequency of occurrence has absolutely changed, which in retrospect seems to be exactly what you should expect. > They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable. You know, I was a little worried that my comment about people losing perspective on the impacts of their habit might have been an overgeneralization (I certainly do know some people who are more circumspect about it), but thank you for volunteering to demonstrate exactly how it works. If my "level of suffering" at being involuntarily opted into someone else's smoking choices is inconsequential, then surely their entirely voluntary choice to engage in it is inconsequential too, and their level of suffering at any requirement to forgo it should be inconsequential. "I enjoy this and so I don't have to worry about whether it annoys or distresses anyone else" is no basis for social reasoning.
jshawl 5y ago
Is there another window in your house you can open so that the airflow comes in from the other side of the house?
- wwweston 5y ago
  There are literally no other windows in my apartment except those adjoining this shared patio.
paxys 5y ago
Do you honestly believe there was no one smoking pot in your apartment building before it was legal?
dumbfoundded 5y ago
This is a pretty silly way to think about the issue. Loud music, dogs barking, kids running around on the floor above you, smoke of any kind, a bed frame hitting the wall repeatedly. I wouldn't rethink the legal status of music, dogs or children because of some bad neighbors.
- wwweston 5y ago
  Noise ordinances are absolutely a thing, and common. Smoke ordinances would be at least that reasonable.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    Yes, that would be very reasonable. The current status of cannabis as a schedule 1 substance is a completely different subject.

1cvmask 5y ago

Majority of Americans support Medicare for All. But both parties are against it. Marijuana legalization is easier to pass than healthcare because there are no entrenched corporate interests against it: https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi...

jacob2484 5y ago
Majority of Americans do NOT support Medicare for All. Please reread your article - they want a public option, which differs from Medicare.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > they want a public option, which differs from Medicare. Medicare is a system by which (currently, a subset) of Americans may select[0] either publicly subsidized private health plans or a purely-public[1] option. The difference between this and the ACA plus a public option is...not that much. [0] well, except for many Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligibles, for which a single plan (often fully-publicly-subsized private) covering both programs is selected for them by their state. [1] actually administered by regional private contractors under federal rules.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Medicare is a specific example of a system. Just because Americans are overwhelmingly thirsty does not mean they want to drink pineapple juice.
- underseacables 5y ago
  I think a lot of Americans want neither.
  - glennvtx 5y ago
    People don't know what they want, or rather, they know what they don't want, and it is what we currently have. "most" Americans would like a reasonably priced open market for healthcare, not the currently entrenched healthcare monopolies. Going any control over healthcare to this government is foolish, has already resulted in what we have today.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

paxys 5y ago

> This is particularly the case among adults ages 75 and older: Just 32% say marijuana should be legal for recreational and medical use, by far the lowest share for any age category and 21 percentage points lower than adults in the next-oldest age group Sadly most elected officials fall in these age groups. Legalizing weed at the Federal level will be a huge win even in states that have already done so. The industry has a very hard time dealing with banking, credit card payments, advertising etc. right now.

iaw 5y ago
Not entirely true: " The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 57.6 years; of Senators, 62.9 years." [0] [0] https://guides.loc.gov/116th-congress-book-list https://guides.loc.gov/116th-congress-book-list
- paxys 5y ago
  Older members of congress wield significantly more power though by way of seniority and committee memberships. Joe Biden (President) - 78 Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) - 81 Steny Hoyer (House Majority Leader) - 81 Jim Clyburn (House Majority Whip) - 80 Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) - 70 Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader) - 79 Patrick Leahy (President pro tempore) - 81 Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) - 76 Most committee chairs/ranking members are 70+ These are the people running the country. A 30 year old first term congresswoman has next to zero influence in matters like this one.
- nprz 5y ago
  And interestingly, that number has been steeply increasing since 1980 https://i.imgur.com/6eiPP3z.jpg https://i.imgur.com/6eiPP3z.jpg

sneak 5y ago

It bothers me that this needs to be done piecemeal, substance by substance. Our bodies are our own to build - they are own to destroy (or alter, or any other damn thing). The whole point of the war on drugs was to imprison minorities. The whole concept of drug prohibition should be done away with. Millions of people are sitting in prison in the US simply because they did something entirely consensual and nonviolent, engaging in a willing transaction with an adult, and victimized no one. The idea that you can't put whatever you want into your own body is diametrically opposed to the desire for personal liberty for which the US is known.

viraptor 5y ago
They could be our own to destroy if that didn't impact people around you. It's the same with DUI - causing a crash doesn't only destroy your life. Or getting addicted to the point you can't care for your children.
- sneak 5y ago
  Your response illustrates my point nicely: Drunk driving is illegal; alcohol possession and sale is not, nor should it be. Child abuse and neglect is already illegal, regardless of drug laws.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    We don't have a good comparison right now... because allowing a good computation is considered a bad idea. Selling alcohol to people who obviously are going to drink and drive, people who are aggressive and drink is restricted in some places though. The issue is that we expect most people to have a drink once in a whole and continue with their lives as usual. We can't realistically expect recreational heroin use with no long term issues.
    - sneak 5y ago
      We also can't realistically expect recreational alcohol use with no long-term issues either: alcohol kills about 100k people per year in the USA. That's not a reason to ban it. The issues are caused by the user, to the user. If users are causing issues to others (violence, theft, drunk driving, et c), those are separate and already-illegal things that can and should be enforced. Arresting people for possession is basically like arresting them for pre-crime: "some other people who possessed similar things later went on to commit actual crimes, so you go to jail out of fear" is not a sane approach. The possession and use of substances for the human body is plainly the wrong place to legislate: the war on drugs in the US has been a costly, racist, unmitigated disaster.

ianai 5y ago

I come to it from the view of prohibition being a known source of power for cartels. I suspect if the various prohibitions were relaxed enough (and safely) that cartels would lose a lot power. Could see less immigrants fleeing cartel violence? But I fear legalization too. I fear people taking it too far and forcing a backlash and a new prohibition.

astrea 5y ago
They're not just smuggling Marijuana and that's assuming they're not already deeply entrenched in their localities.
- asdff 5y ago
  Even in California, the cartel is still active in the grey market. As long as the legal option remains dramatically more expensive than grey market, and how couldn't it with sometimes a >30% tax rate, there will be a grey market.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Sure but organized crime runs on profit margins, and study after study has shown that by and large organized crime can't fund itself without the profits from drug running. Nothing else is as lucrative, and most secondary markets they get involved in tend to be to supply things the criminals want - i.e. guns and sex trafficking. There is a bizarre trend in these conversations to make a defeatist argument along the lines of "the cartels can never be stopped" that doesn't seem to line up with any of the actual evidence. For example, gun running into the US just isn't a thing - gun smuggling is what organized crime takes out of the US - but the money needs to be USD to pay for it, and ultimately Mexico just doesn't have a lot of that without drugs.
paxys 5y ago
What even is taking marijuana "too far"? It has been legal for >66% of the country in some form for many years now, and society has not descended into chaos.

undefined1 5y ago

majority support, and democrats have control of the three branches of government. what's the hold up in getting it legalized?

paxys 5y ago
1. Senate filibuster rules 2. Having zero spare votes (there is usually at least one Democrat senator, like Manchin, opposed to everything)

ALittleLight 5y ago

The biggest change I noticed with respect to legalization is that it used to be the case that you couldn't walk around the streets of downtown Seattle without being offered weed by street vendors, and sometimes other drugs. After legalization and marijuana stores the street vendors (at least those I encountered) basically disappeared.

chenzhekl 5y ago
That is not a good reason I think. It sounds like we should legalize something because we already have no control of it.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  If you can't effectively prohibit something you probably shouldn't try. Otherwise you're wasting resources and eroding goodwill towards law enforcement which will be involved in fighting something that people really want to do.
- XorNot 5y ago
  It implies that it would be difficult for legalization to make the situation worse if you already have no control of it. And as noted: legalization improved the situation substantially.

GeekyBear 5y ago

Oddly, Biden is a bigger holdout against full legalization than Congress. >Biden’s blunt opposition to marijuana legalization https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalization-schumer-polls https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalizati...

paxys 5y ago
Funny enough in this case how Kamala Harris feels might be more important, since she'll likely cast the deciding vote in the Senate. I can't see Biden vetoing the legalization bill if it passes both chambers, regardless of his personal views.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  Typically, the Vice President will follow the President's agenda, regardless of how they personally feel. I'm sure she'll offer her views privately and then follow the President's lead publicly, just as Biden did when he opposed Obama's Afghanistan surge and remaining there forever. However, on this issue, a group of Republicans and Democrats have been renewing a ban on using Federal dollars to prosecute individuals for pot in states where it is legal since the Obama years, regardless of which party controls the Senate.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > However, on this issue, a group of Republicans and Democrats have been renewing a ban on using Federal dollars to prosecute individuals for pot in states where it is legal since the Obama years, regardless of which party controls the Senate. Only where the use is consistent with state law limited to medical use; the House tried to expand that to include state law covering non-medical use in 2019 and 2020, but in both cases this change was not included in matching Senate bills and not restored in reconciliation of the bills.
- chmod600 5y ago
  Why do you think the Senate will tie?

chenzhekl 5y ago

Are there any goods to legalize marijuana? If there had been a chance, I would have voted to ban cigarettes as well.

Nbox9 5y ago
Tax revenue, reduced use of law enforcement resources, increased personal liberty.

person_of_color 5y ago

I am interested in the devil's advocate to current trend of Marijuana legalisation. _EVERY_ discourse on the internet (besides religious cranks it seems) tends to favour legalisation. If something is too good to be true, then it is. There could be a significant population who are risk of adverse outcomes, especially 18-24 users whose brains are still developing.

protomyth 5y ago

I still don't understand how DUI is going to work? The testing doesn't seem to have kept up with the desires of the public.

chmod600 5y ago
Do we have the science to know how safe/unsafe it is to drive under the influence of marijuana?
- Balgair 5y ago
  There have been a few studies out of CO that I can't find at the moment. The gist is that it's less safe than being sober, but a bit more safe than driving drunk. Unfortunately, the real finding is that combining the two is a lot less safe than either on their own and that a lot of drivers are choosing to cross-fade.
paxys 5y ago
I don't think anyone has been able to conclusively say that marijuana legalization actually increases the percentage of smokers in any state where it has been implemented.
- protomyth 5y ago
  I really don't care about the increase. I care about disproving / proving DUI in court. Without a valid blood test / breath test and some standards, its going to be a rough go. As to if high people are bad drivers, then yes they are. I don't even know how that's a debate. What constitutes high is the real debate.
  - paxys 5y ago
    My point is that all of this is already a problem. Legalization will, if nothing else, make it easier to conduct research and get funding to fix some of this.

chmod600 5y ago

It is becoming increasingly hard to justify a prohibition on gun ownership due to marijuana use. These two issues will clash soon.

Stevvo 5y ago
How are the two issues related at all?
- chmod600 5y ago
  If you use marijuana, you either need to lie on the form required to buy a gun, or the gun store won't sell it to you. Also, in theory, if you have a gun and use marijuana, you are a prohibited person in possession of a gun, which is a serious crime.

alexose 5y ago

I found myself wondering why we can’t just pass popular legislation as individual clean bills. In a climate where two thirds of Americans support a wealth tax, why not simply send a wealth tax to the Senate and see what happens? The answer, unfortunately, lies in the many layers upon layers of ‘dealmaking’ that happens in congress that lead to popular bills being bundled with less popular ones. Combined with the trend of trying to pass everything through reconciliation, it means that we almost never get to see congress legislate individual issues. That’s a shame. In software, we’d recognize this all-or-nothing approach as bad practice. It would be no surprise why nothing ever gets done, and we’d make a new process that favors incremental improvements.

ajmurmann 5y ago
> Combined with the trend of trying to pass everything through reconciliation, it means that we almost never get to see congress legislate individual issues. Having to go through budget reconciliation is another symptom of the same problem. The filibuster used to get used very infrequently. Now that the parties have clearly sorted themselves there is actually less cross-party dealmaking, instead everything has to go through reconciliation which also requires that bills get changed to fit the requirements of budget reconciliation. It's just another outcome of our hyperpartisanship. The hyperpartisanship and two-party system is also the reason why even popular legislation cannot pass. If it passes it's a win for the governing party. If it doesn't it gets held against the government party because they should be in control. If they cannot get it done it gets blamed on them bring weak. So why would the opposition allow passing even popular legislation? McConnell explained this very openly and clearly.

wcchandler 5y ago

I’m fairly convinced we’re only about 5-10 acquisitions away from cannabis becoming legal via the legislative branch. There’s 3 larges sectors that are still holdouts. Healthcare, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Healthcare will never flip because there’s almost no revenue for them. The only thing they might be able to do is partner with Bayer and license/patent specific strains. Tobacco exists because it’s addictive. CBD and hemp already offer sedative natural alternatives that are healthier and safer for the consumer. If you find anybody taking Wellbutrin or any drug that can cessate the nicotine withdrawal, they can easily kick the habit via cold turkey, or substitution. Finally the last big industry is alcohol. I could talk about this pivot for hours but ultimately, look at what AB/InBev is doing. What have they poured millions of r&d into lately? Seltzer drinks. Edibles are expected to be the largest growth segment of the legal cannabis industry for the next 10 years. I already see it in various circles. Seltzer drinks are easily the next step for the alcohol industry. The issue now is how are these cards going to fall. Will they try to pace their way and drop tons of r&d into the legalization/testing efforts or will they try to leverage all of the existing infrastructure that exists in the legal cannabis industry? That’s why I think we’re only about 5-10 acquisitions away from finding the answer. And once we have the answer, legalization will easily fall afterward. Edit to add: Biden is doing a great job but this wasn’t one of his bullet points. He might have a difference of opinion. He might pursue something at the federal level. But I’m not counting on it. I fully believe that if these acquisitions happen before 2022 we’ll see it on ballots.