7 ms·

Enough already. Just legalize it federally and pinch it off.

by causasui 5y ago

tru3_power 5y ago
I really don’t get why this hasn’t happened yet.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Politics. Representatives aren’t aging out/turning over as fast as the overall electorate, so you have popular support but reps who disagree and therefore won’t sponsor or vote for legalization. The perils of a representative democracy. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marijuana-legalization-is-super-popular-why-hasnt-it-happened-nationally/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marijuana-legalization-... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-overwhelmingly-say-marijuana-should-be-legal-for-recreational-or-medical-use/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-o... https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/senate-democrats-weed-legalization-schumer-483747 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/senate-democrats-we...
  - hanniabu 5y ago
    Love it when representatives don't represent, such democracy
    - smt88 5y ago
      Voters don't represent. Young people are much less likely to vote, so of course their values aren't reflected in the electorate. And then you have unnecessary barriers to voting that further discourage young, transient, and lower-income from voting.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      It is litterally the will of the people. The voters (*should) know what their representatives represent, if they didnt like it they wouldnt elecet them back with sweeping mandates.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  Money. It's about who makes/takes the money. Generally, any mass scale stupidity that seemingly makes zero sense boils down to specific people making money. Bigger stupidity equals big financial gains
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Not disagreeing with you in the general sense, but in this case there's a medical marijuana industry spending a small fortune on lobbying with (as far I'm aware) no well-funded opposition.
  - e40 5y ago
    Disagree. The money made from taxes will for sure replace the lost revenue from incarcerating more folks. Also, the south is ruled by Republicans, mostly, and they're all about denial. No abortions and no birth control. No public assistance--there is some, but they always seek to minimize it. No affirmative action. No BLM, since they're about All Lives Matter. No vaccines. No mask mandates. No reliable power grids. No lack of corruption at the state level (FL is off the charts corrupt... the people being bribed with zero state taxes). They're generally, bootstrap yourself into wealth like they did, even they they had privilege on their side; poor people need not apply to the American Dream. Curiously, they will ask the Federal government for a handout when they run into trouble, usually due to natural disasters, like flooding.
    - jacob2484 5y ago
      And yet people continue to move to the South and out of liberal disasters where it's all tax, tax, tax and waste money.
      - amcoastal 5y ago
        70% of the countries GDP were in counties Biden won. 90% of counties that voted for Trumps population shrunk since 2010.
        5y ago
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Slow change is better for stability and avoiding regression. If you jam something through, it will never achieve 100% buy-in. If you let it progress naturally, the naysayers will eventually come around organically. Granted that’s not why we’re moving at this glacial pace but the benefits certainly don’t hurt.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    It really depends on the kind of change we're talking about. With this stuff, every year it's delayed is one more year that people end up in prison and with criminal records for the rest of their lives, with no benefit to the society. Furthermore, the states are supposed to be "laboratories of democracy" to run such experiments. If the feds legalize it, any state prohibitions remain in effect. Those states that want to be conservative about it can keep them on the books, and those that don't can move fast to legalize themselves - and then we see what happens. (Although, at this point, I'm not sure there are any states left where the majority public opinion is not in favor of legalization.)
- buu700 5y ago
  The real answer as of today: it's coming soon (as per the demand of Chuck Schumer, Senate majority leader), but isn't the top legislative priority. At a minimum, I'd say we won't have a bill on the Senate floor until after the after the reconciliation infrastructure bill and debt ceiling increase are passed. Most likely it'll take until after a voting rights bill is passed as well. My prediction is 4/20 of next year, both for the obvious symbolic reason and because the timing means that the law could go into effect shortly before midterm elections.
- int_19h 5y ago
  It's the dark side of representative democracy. Because, in practice, the representatives tend to be career politicians, often from long-running political dynasties, they effectively are - and, more importantly, consider themselves to be - distinct from the electorate at large. And this elitism often comes with a very paternalistic attitude - "the people might want it, but the people don't know what's good for them". FWIW this is not at all unique to right wing politics, or to the US in general. For another example, consider how UK censors porn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_King...
  - 8note 5y ago
    A simpler view for America: the representatives to things that make them personally welathy, and current politicians haven't been paid enough to introduce a competitor to their existing investments
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Look at what organizations lobby against legalization in the states that have legalized it. PBAs and police unions are often the top spenders against legalization. Marijuana convictions generate a lot of revenue, and in some places marijuana arrests are a significant chunk of all arrests.
- dekhn 5y ago
  the old guard (long-time senators and reps) perceived it as a way to lose long-term older constituents. that changed in the past 5-10 years as the long-term older constituents are now pro-pot.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Because a massive federal agency (DEA) exists as a protector of drug cartel monopolies and assures they'll never be out of a job.
nsizx 5y ago
I'd rather states legislate themselves any way they want.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smt88 5y ago
  That means you support an end to the federal "War on Drugs". States are still free to legislate however they want after that.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
The federal government can legalize it without the states doing the same, it’s still up to the states as an and rather than an or.
- chmod600 5y ago
  It matters quite a lot what the federal government does. As long as it's federally illegal, it creates a weird shadow no matter what the state law says.
  - hajile 5y ago
    The Federal government’s restrictions are illegal in the first place. Their argument is (quite literally) that because marijuana could in some theoretical sense cross state lines that they then have the authority to regulate it (even if it never crosses between states). The Interstate Commerce Clause has been used by both parties over the years to illegally centralize and cement their Federal power. State legislatures and governors don’t get enough attention. They still exert tons of day to day influence on your life. Almost as importantly, a voting poll of a few million rather than a couple hundred million means you have much more influence and thus more influence over your life.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Enough already. Just legalize it federally and pinch it off.

tru3_power 5y ago

I really don’t get why this hasn’t happened yet.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Politics. Representatives aren’t aging out/turning over as fast as the overall electorate, so you have popular support but reps who disagree and therefore won’t sponsor or vote for legalization. The perils of a representative democracy. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marijuana-legalization-is-super-popular-why-hasnt-it-happened-nationally/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marijuana-legalization-... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-overwhelmingly-say-marijuana-should-be-legal-for-recreational-or-medical-use/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-o... https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/senate-democrats-weed-legalization-schumer-483747 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/20/senate-democrats-we...
- hanniabu 5y ago
  Love it when representatives don't represent, such democracy
  - smt88 5y ago
    Voters don't represent. Young people are much less likely to vote, so of course their values aren't reflected in the electorate. And then you have unnecessary barriers to voting that further discourage young, transient, and lower-income from voting.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    It is litterally the will of the people. The voters (*should) know what their representatives represent, if they didnt like it they wouldnt elecet them back with sweeping mandates.
beebeepka 5y ago
Money. It's about who makes/takes the money. Generally, any mass scale stupidity that seemingly makes zero sense boils down to specific people making money. Bigger stupidity equals big financial gains
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Not disagreeing with you in the general sense, but in this case there's a medical marijuana industry spending a small fortune on lobbying with (as far I'm aware) no well-funded opposition.
- e40 5y ago
  Disagree. The money made from taxes will for sure replace the lost revenue from incarcerating more folks. Also, the south is ruled by Republicans, mostly, and they're all about denial. No abortions and no birth control. No public assistance--there is some, but they always seek to minimize it. No affirmative action. No BLM, since they're about All Lives Matter. No vaccines. No mask mandates. No reliable power grids. No lack of corruption at the state level (FL is off the charts corrupt... the people being bribed with zero state taxes). They're generally, bootstrap yourself into wealth like they did, even they they had privilege on their side; poor people need not apply to the American Dream. Curiously, they will ask the Federal government for a handout when they run into trouble, usually due to natural disasters, like flooding.
  - jacob2484 5y ago
    And yet people continue to move to the South and out of liberal disasters where it's all tax, tax, tax and waste money.
    - amcoastal 5y ago
      70% of the countries GDP were in counties Biden won. 90% of counties that voted for Trumps population shrunk since 2010.
      - 5y ago
jimbob45 5y ago
Slow change is better for stability and avoiding regression. If you jam something through, it will never achieve 100% buy-in. If you let it progress naturally, the naysayers will eventually come around organically. Granted that’s not why we’re moving at this glacial pace but the benefits certainly don’t hurt.
- int_19h 5y ago
  It really depends on the kind of change we're talking about. With this stuff, every year it's delayed is one more year that people end up in prison and with criminal records for the rest of their lives, with no benefit to the society. Furthermore, the states are supposed to be "laboratories of democracy" to run such experiments. If the feds legalize it, any state prohibitions remain in effect. Those states that want to be conservative about it can keep them on the books, and those that don't can move fast to legalize themselves - and then we see what happens. (Although, at this point, I'm not sure there are any states left where the majority public opinion is not in favor of legalization.)
buu700 5y ago
The real answer as of today: it's coming soon (as per the demand of Chuck Schumer, Senate majority leader), but isn't the top legislative priority. At a minimum, I'd say we won't have a bill on the Senate floor until after the after the reconciliation infrastructure bill and debt ceiling increase are passed. Most likely it'll take until after a voting rights bill is passed as well. My prediction is 4/20 of next year, both for the obvious symbolic reason and because the timing means that the law could go into effect shortly before midterm elections.
int_19h 5y ago
It's the dark side of representative democracy. Because, in practice, the representatives tend to be career politicians, often from long-running political dynasties, they effectively are - and, more importantly, consider themselves to be - distinct from the electorate at large. And this elitism often comes with a very paternalistic attitude - "the people might want it, but the people don't know what's good for them". FWIW this is not at all unique to right wing politics, or to the US in general. For another example, consider how UK censors porn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_King...
- 8note 5y ago
  A simpler view for America: the representatives to things that make them personally welathy, and current politicians haven't been paid enough to introduce a competitor to their existing investments
heavyset_go 5y ago
Look at what organizations lobby against legalization in the states that have legalized it. PBAs and police unions are often the top spenders against legalization. Marijuana convictions generate a lot of revenue, and in some places marijuana arrests are a significant chunk of all arrests.
dekhn 5y ago
the old guard (long-time senators and reps) perceived it as a way to lose long-term older constituents. that changed in the past 5-10 years as the long-term older constituents are now pro-pot.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Because a massive federal agency (DEA) exists as a protector of drug cartel monopolies and assures they'll never be out of a job.

nsizx 5y ago

I'd rather states legislate themselves any way they want.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smt88 5y ago
That means you support an end to the federal "War on Drugs". States are still free to legislate however they want after that.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

The federal government can legalize it without the states doing the same, it’s still up to the states as an and rather than an or.

chmod600 5y ago
It matters quite a lot what the federal government does. As long as it's federally illegal, it creates a weird shadow no matter what the state law says.
- hajile 5y ago
  The Federal government’s restrictions are illegal in the first place. Their argument is (quite literally) that because marijuana could in some theoretical sense cross state lines that they then have the authority to regulate it (even if it never crosses between states). The Interstate Commerce Clause has been used by both parties over the years to illegally centralize and cement their Federal power. State legislatures and governors don’t get enough attention. They still exert tons of day to day influence on your life. Almost as importantly, a voting poll of a few million rather than a couple hundred million means you have much more influence and thus more influence over your life.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]