5 ms·

House Committee Will Vote on Federal Marijuana Legalization Bill Next Week

89 points by jdmark 5y ago

nimbius 5y ago
so if i understand this correctly through the dark veil of my millennial cynicism: the 35 year grass-roots collaborative effort between medical professionals, scientists, and civically minded enthusiasts to modernize and legalize recreational cannabis was a complete and total pointless waste, when one of the five largest corporations in the world can bring legislation that has stalled, failed or never even made it out of committee, to vote in under 72 hours to the house of congress because it cant find enough people willing to drive a truck for poverty wages.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  I don't think its cynical at all. It is basically how most of the US policy is being done. It certainly helps that average US household doesn't care about MJ anymore, which allows Amazon not spend PR time on ensuring the populace that their widgets are gathered by non-high individuals. But yeah, the worker 'shortage' forced the biggest companies to rethink their policies and they do happen to spend a lot in Washington.
- INTPenis 5y ago
  Money talks...
- doliveira 5y ago
  I try to see these corporate politics more as a thermometer of society. If a huge corporation is willing to throw marketing or lobbying behind your cause, it means it has reached high enough acceptance in society. And that acceptance definitely only came about because of those decades of effort by social movements So it's a good sign, isn't it? Even though I understand it might taste bittersweet.
inglor_cz 5y ago
One of the worst things about MJ ban was the legal explanation given in Gonzales vs Raich: growing MJ plants in your own home for your personal use does somehow influence interstate commerce and thus Congress can ban it under the Interstate Commerce Clause. This explanation, endorsed by the SCOTUS, is so expansive that it is hard to imagine any activity that would still not be covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich This is a legal abomination.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Is that any more egregious than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    The thing is, there is no natural limit to this thinking. By flossing regularly you almost certainly impact the interstate commerce in dentures (negatively). Fortunately, no one has come with the idea to limit legal flossing time to 20 seconds a day to protect the denture business. Yet. I hope the Congress does not feel inspired to do so right now.
- snazz 5y ago
  Didn't Wickard v. Filburn set this precedent? Growing feed for animals on your own farm shouldn't affect interstate commerce significantly either, but it became the precedent.
- michaelrpeskin 5y ago
  Not defending it, but it has legal precedent going back much farther. Still an abomination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- cletus 5y ago
  Just to add some context to this, this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause really began with Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [1], more often just called Filburn. The essence of this decision was Federal policy in the Great Depression was to control wheat production to stop overproduction and the below-cost prices that resulted. The court decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was still within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause as that production would result in that farmer not purchasing wheat. That wheat that wasn't purchased would in turn affect interstates wheat sales and thus fell under the Commerce Clause. To me, this is a ridiculous example of judicial overreach as it basically covers everything and in an ideal world SCOTUS would overturn that precedent. So the Gonzalez decision just continues that earlier interpretation and gives the Federal government sweeping powers for what reasonable people might otherwise agree are state issues. Interestingly, I just looked up the Gonzalez decision [2] and I think I've found possibly the only Thomas opinion I've ever agreed with. He dissents: > Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. Somewhat surprising (at least to me), Scalia concurred with the majority opinion although wrote separate reasoning for it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
lvspiff 5y ago
I've learned bill coming out of the House means nothing nowadays. If this came out of the Senate then maybe this would be something to hype, but coming from the house where over 90% of bills have died so far this year my expectation is rather muted because of that.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  It is still indication of a trend. Many states have legalized MJ this way or another, and there was no tsunami of bad consequences, so even the federal politicians start to be moderately brave. Also, legal stuff can be taxed and this is one tax that even GOP won't hate.
- taylodl 5y ago
  It's posturing for the 2022 midterms. The Dems want to be able to point to the Repubs stalling on MJ legalization. The Repubs want to point to the Dems wanting to take away everyone's guns and kill everybody's babies. I think it's utterly ridiculous but, these parties spend millions of dollars on elections analysis and I'm assuming they're not blowing their money, so I must conclude these tactics work.
trutannus 5y ago
Are there any other sources for this? I've tried looking for this, but have had trouble finding anything. Does anyone have a source to tell how realistic it is to expect this bill to go anywhere when countless other have flopped? Cannabis-focused news sources like this one tend to paint overly optimistic pictures.
Bhilai 5y ago
> It should be noted that President Joe Biden remains firmly opposed to adult-use marijuana legalization So he is not going to sign it even if it passes the Senate. Meh.
heavymark 5y ago
The houses passes headline bills all the time, knowing that the senate won't pass. Is this presumably one of those with 0 chance of actually passing or is their actually potentially the votes in the Senate? If so I would assume this would be on non .net, news site.
omegaworks 5y ago
>Separately, a proposal to federally deschedule marijuana that does not include social equity components was filed by a pair of Republican congressmen in May. A perfect example of a party willing to wash its hands of all the harm the previous policy has caused. No remorse whatsoever for the years of life and opportunities stolen from people, families and communities ripped apart over five decades of an explicitly racist[1] War on Drugs. 1. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” -President Richard Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/ https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminal...
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  Would you prefer that a party never change its views over time? Because I doubt that standard would work out for modern morality if it were applied across the spectrum.
  - omegaworks 5y ago
    I would prefer that a solution that didn't include reparations for prior harms wasn't even on the table. I would prefer that both parties felt extreme shame for their participation in the destruction of American communities. That any party would be embarrassed to see Americans still imprisoned for participating in an economy that they then later pivoted to opening to everyone.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Come on Amazon, lean on those reps! Edit: Y’all, I am no Amazon fan, but I am all for marijuana legalization and expunging records for those previously convicted. If it takes Amazon to do that, so be it. The enemy of bad policy is temporarily a friend. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-is-supporting-the-effort-to-reform-the-nations-cannabis-policy https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-is...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  I chuckled. About 5 years ago I remember listening to an interview and there was an interesting collage of various students' responses as to why they are smoking marijuana if they know it will limit their chances in the work market. One surprisingly direct answer was, and I am paraphrasing: 'heh, if they don't want to have anyone to work, that is their choice'.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Amazon probably doesn't actually want national legalization. That would mean their perk of no drug testing isn't worth as much. The whole point of this stance is that it helps their recruitment machine, not because they actually care about marijuana usage.
  - riboflavin123 5y ago
    Maybe from an employment perspective, but I'd expect Amazon's sales, distribution, and delivery systems to make boatloads of money selling cannabis online. Maybe not immediately, but 5 years after legalization, Prime Weed (tm) will be a huge moneymaker.
    - scohesc 5y ago
      Ordering a joint from the nearest Amazon Marijuana dispensary and a drone delivers it and lights it for you before it leaves.
    - ry4nolson 5y ago
      not to mention the increased sales from people ordering while high.
easytiger 5y ago
The whole country is going to stink isn't it?
kaminar 5y ago
Narcotics have no place in society...including marijuana. Other than "real" medical reasons...over half the U.S. population is on 1 or more prescribed narcotic, which is insane...and lucrative. What would happen if those narcotics -and the means to produce them- suddenly dispersed?
GoodJokes 5y ago
Well you know, now that Amazon wants it…

89 points by jdmark 5y ago

so if i understand this correctly through the dark veil of my millennial cynicism: the 35 year grass-roots collaborative effort between medical professionals, scientists, and civically minded enthusiasts to modernize and legalize recreational cannabis was a complete and total pointless waste, when one of the five largest corporations in the world can bring legislation that has stalled, failed or never even made it out of committee, to vote in under 72 hours to the house of congress because it cant find enough people willing to drive a truck for poverty wages.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I don't think its cynical at all. It is basically how most of the US policy is being done. It certainly helps that average US household doesn't care about MJ anymore, which allows Amazon not spend PR time on ensuring the populace that their widgets are gathered by non-high individuals. But yeah, the worker 'shortage' forced the biggest companies to rethink their policies and they do happen to spend a lot in Washington.
INTPenis 5y ago
Money talks...
doliveira 5y ago
I try to see these corporate politics more as a thermometer of society. If a huge corporation is willing to throw marketing or lobbying behind your cause, it means it has reached high enough acceptance in society. And that acceptance definitely only came about because of those decades of effort by social movements So it's a good sign, isn't it? Even though I understand it might taste bittersweet.

inglor_cz 5y ago

One of the worst things about MJ ban was the legal explanation given in Gonzales vs Raich: growing MJ plants in your own home for your personal use does somehow influence interstate commerce and thus Congress can ban it under the Interstate Commerce Clause. This explanation, endorsed by the SCOTUS, is so expansive that it is hard to imagine any activity that would still not be covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich This is a legal abomination.

bcrosby95 5y ago
Is that any more egregious than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  The thing is, there is no natural limit to this thinking. By flossing regularly you almost certainly impact the interstate commerce in dentures (negatively). Fortunately, no one has come with the idea to limit legal flossing time to 20 seconds a day to protect the denture business. Yet. I hope the Congress does not feel inspired to do so right now.
snazz 5y ago
Didn't Wickard v. Filburn set this precedent? Growing feed for animals on your own farm shouldn't affect interstate commerce significantly either, but it became the precedent.
michaelrpeskin 5y ago
Not defending it, but it has legal precedent going back much farther. Still an abomination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
cletus 5y ago
Just to add some context to this, this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause really began with Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [1], more often just called Filburn. The essence of this decision was Federal policy in the Great Depression was to control wheat production to stop overproduction and the below-cost prices that resulted. The court decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was still within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause as that production would result in that farmer not purchasing wheat. That wheat that wasn't purchased would in turn affect interstates wheat sales and thus fell under the Commerce Clause. To me, this is a ridiculous example of judicial overreach as it basically covers everything and in an ideal world SCOTUS would overturn that precedent. So the Gonzalez decision just continues that earlier interpretation and gives the Federal government sweeping powers for what reasonable people might otherwise agree are state issues. Interestingly, I just looked up the Gonzalez decision [2] and I think I've found possibly the only Thomas opinion I've ever agreed with. He dissents: > Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. Somewhat surprising (at least to me), Scalia concurred with the majority opinion although wrote separate reasoning for it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

lvspiff 5y ago

I've learned bill coming out of the House means nothing nowadays. If this came out of the Senate then maybe this would be something to hype, but coming from the house where over 90% of bills have died so far this year my expectation is rather muted because of that.

inglor_cz 5y ago
It is still indication of a trend. Many states have legalized MJ this way or another, and there was no tsunami of bad consequences, so even the federal politicians start to be moderately brave. Also, legal stuff can be taxed and this is one tax that even GOP won't hate.
taylodl 5y ago
It's posturing for the 2022 midterms. The Dems want to be able to point to the Repubs stalling on MJ legalization. The Repubs want to point to the Dems wanting to take away everyone's guns and kill everybody's babies. I think it's utterly ridiculous but, these parties spend millions of dollars on elections analysis and I'm assuming they're not blowing their money, so I must conclude these tactics work.

trutannus 5y ago

Are there any other sources for this? I've tried looking for this, but have had trouble finding anything. Does anyone have a source to tell how realistic it is to expect this bill to go anywhere when countless other have flopped? Cannabis-focused news sources like this one tend to paint overly optimistic pictures.

Bhilai 5y ago

> It should be noted that President Joe Biden remains firmly opposed to adult-use marijuana legalization So he is not going to sign it even if it passes the Senate. Meh.

heavymark 5y ago

The houses passes headline bills all the time, knowing that the senate won't pass. Is this presumably one of those with 0 chance of actually passing or is their actually potentially the votes in the Senate? If so I would assume this would be on non .net, news site.

omegaworks 5y ago

>Separately, a proposal to federally deschedule marijuana that does not include social equity components was filed by a pair of Republican congressmen in May. A perfect example of a party willing to wash its hands of all the harm the previous policy has caused. No remorse whatsoever for the years of life and opportunities stolen from people, families and communities ripped apart over five decades of an explicitly racist[1] War on Drugs. 1. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” -President Richard Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/ https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminal...

jimmygrapes 5y ago
Would you prefer that a party never change its views over time? Because I doubt that standard would work out for modern morality if it were applied across the spectrum.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  I would prefer that a solution that didn't include reparations for prior harms wasn't even on the table. I would prefer that both parties felt extreme shame for their participation in the destruction of American communities. That any party would be embarrassed to see Americans still imprisoned for participating in an economy that they then later pivoted to opening to everyone.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Come on Amazon, lean on those reps! Edit: Y’all, I am no Amazon fan, but I am all for marijuana legalization and expunging records for those previously convicted. If it takes Amazon to do that, so be it. The enemy of bad policy is temporarily a friend. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-is-supporting-the-effort-to-reform-the-nations-cannabis-policy https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazon-is...

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I chuckled. About 5 years ago I remember listening to an interview and there was an interesting collage of various students' responses as to why they are smoking marijuana if they know it will limit their chances in the work market. One surprisingly direct answer was, and I am paraphrasing: 'heh, if they don't want to have anyone to work, that is their choice'.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Amazon probably doesn't actually want national legalization. That would mean their perk of no drug testing isn't worth as much. The whole point of this stance is that it helps their recruitment machine, not because they actually care about marijuana usage.
- riboflavin123 5y ago
  Maybe from an employment perspective, but I'd expect Amazon's sales, distribution, and delivery systems to make boatloads of money selling cannabis online. Maybe not immediately, but 5 years after legalization, Prime Weed (tm) will be a huge moneymaker.
  - scohesc 5y ago
    Ordering a joint from the nearest Amazon Marijuana dispensary and a drone delivers it and lights it for you before it leaves.
  - ry4nolson 5y ago
    not to mention the increased sales from people ordering while high.

easytiger 5y ago

The whole country is going to stink isn't it?

kaminar 5y ago

Narcotics have no place in society...including marijuana. Other than "real" medical reasons...over half the U.S. population is on 1 or more prescribed narcotic, which is insane...and lucrative. What would happen if those narcotics -and the means to produce them- suddenly dispersed?

GoodJokes 5y ago

Well you know, now that Amazon wants it…