5 ms·

Are we sure this loophole in the legislation was accidental? Seems like a surprisingly convenient mistake to make.

by aoieu 2y ago

ceejayoz 2y ago
Wouldn't be the first time. Dems in MN managed to slip a similar loophole through the Republican-controlled state senate a while back. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edibles-accident-delta-8 https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edib... Or Tennesee, where early versions of a law accidentally forgot to keep marrying a toddler illegal. (They fixed that one.) https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edibles-accident-delta-8 https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edib...
- mywittyname 2y ago
  > Minnesota state Sen. Jim Abeler, a Republican from Anoka, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune he did not realize this law would allow THC-infused edibles of any kind and thought it would only apply to delta-8 THC products. It's almost as though people who are experts in a field should be in charge of making the specific regulations, with Congress tasking them with high-level objectives. Expect more of this with the Chevron deference ruling. Now we will have judges making these decisions using only technical input from the party in favor of looser restrictions.
  - AmericanChopper 2y ago
    > It's almost as though people who are experts in a field should be in charge of making the specific regulations, with Congress tasking them with high-level objectives. You're literally advocating for a technocracy, which most people don't want. We don't need a overclass of technical elites running our lives, we just need competent law makers. Legislators can and do consult with experts when writing their legislation. We don't need to do away with democracy just because some of them don't do a good job. Even if they are useless, we do at least have the lawmakers that we want to have.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > You're literally advocating for a technocracy, which most people don't want. No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US. (Longer, really, as Chevron just established SCOTUS precedent for what was already the setup for decades.) > We don't need a overclass of technical elites running our lives, we just need competent law makers. And unicorns! And cotton candy clouds! And a river of chocolate! Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people. Some will absolutely have pet issues they do a lot of research on, but understanding even the basics of everything is... tough.
      - AmericanChopper 2y ago
        > No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US. Are you suggesting this element of our governance has been well received by the population? Have you been satisfied with the government during that period? Just because a system managed to become the status quo for a period of time doesn’t mean it wasn’t technocratic. Because that is absolutely a technocratic way to legislate. The system described in the patent comment is also far more technocratic than chevron deference ever was. Allowing regulators some room to interpret legislation is completely different from giving them some high level objectives and carte blanch to implement them however they see fit. > Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people. They have never had to be, because that’s not how laws are written. Laws are written by teams of lawyers and subject matter experts, and then voted on by legislators. If you want to remove the legislators from this process, or distance them from it to some degree, then you’re removing/distancing the democracy from it.
        myvoiceismypass 2y ago
        I am happy with a many of "the government" initiatives in my lifetime (which spans beyond your 84 threshold) that were enacted by one party (the one always cleaning up deficit messes), yes.
petesergeant 2y ago
Thailand managed something similar, an attempt to reform the law to be slightly more cannabis friendly, and ended up in some kind of legal limbo where it’s become unregulated in practice: https://time.com/6208192/thailand-war-on-drugs-weed-legal/ https://time.com/6208192/thailand-war-on-drugs-weed-legal/ Which is a big deal for a country that used to have exceptionally draconian laws about it.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  They revoked it within 2 years and are back to the old laws. Outside of the tourist/expat/backpacker bubble Thailand is very conservative. Neighboring Myanmar having Balkanized into multiple mini-narco states doesn't help either.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > and are back to the old laws Have you been to Thailand recently? Lower Sukhumvit is full of head shops. The “old laws” meant prison or worse for anyone selling it. There is indeed a new ban being suggested, to take place in 2025: https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/07/09/is-weed-still-legal-in-thailand-heres-what-tourists-need-to-know-as-government-u-turns https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/07/09/is-weed-still-leg...
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Considering the groups looking to close the loophole, I can believe it was unintentional. Especially since this started as a project from Mitch McConnell to support his home industry. The end of the article notes how Florida is continuing to fight marijuana. …legislative battles at the state level. In early June, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launched a political-action committee to fight a state ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana. The very same week, he vetoed a bill that would have restricted hemp cannabinoids in the state.

Are we sure this loophole in the legislation was accidental? Seems like a surprisingly convenient mistake to make.

by aoieu 2y ago

Are we sure this loophole in the legislation was accidental? Seems like a surprisingly convenient mistake to make.

Wouldn't be the first time. Dems in MN managed to slip a similar loophole through the Republican-controlled state senate a while back. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edibles-accident-delta-8 https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edib... Or Tennesee, where early versions of a law accidentally forgot to keep marrying a toddler illegal. (They fixed that one.) https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edibles-accident-delta-8 https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109576113/minnesota-thc-edib...

mywittyname 2y ago
> Minnesota state Sen. Jim Abeler, a Republican from Anoka, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune he did not realize this law would allow THC-infused edibles of any kind and thought it would only apply to delta-8 THC products. It's almost as though people who are experts in a field should be in charge of making the specific regulations, with Congress tasking them with high-level objectives. Expect more of this with the Chevron deference ruling. Now we will have judges making these decisions using only technical input from the party in favor of looser restrictions.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  > It's almost as though people who are experts in a field should be in charge of making the specific regulations, with Congress tasking them with high-level objectives. You're literally advocating for a technocracy, which most people don't want. We don't need a overclass of technical elites running our lives, we just need competent law makers. Legislators can and do consult with experts when writing their legislation. We don't need to do away with democracy just because some of them don't do a good job. Even if they are useless, we do at least have the lawmakers that we want to have.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > You're literally advocating for a technocracy, which most people don't want. No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US. (Longer, really, as Chevron just established SCOTUS precedent for what was already the setup for decades.) > We don't need a overclass of technical elites running our lives, we just need competent law makers. And unicorns! And cotton candy clouds! And a river of chocolate! Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people. Some will absolutely have pet issues they do a lot of research on, but understanding even the basics of everything is... tough.
    - AmericanChopper 2y ago
      > No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US. Are you suggesting this element of our governance has been well received by the population? Have you been satisfied with the government during that period? Just because a system managed to become the status quo for a period of time doesn’t mean it wasn’t technocratic. Because that is absolutely a technocratic way to legislate. The system described in the patent comment is also far more technocratic than chevron deference ever was. Allowing regulators some room to interpret legislation is completely different from giving them some high level objectives and carte blanch to implement them however they see fit. > Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people. They have never had to be, because that’s not how laws are written. Laws are written by teams of lawyers and subject matter experts, and then voted on by legislators. If you want to remove the legislators from this process, or distance them from it to some degree, then you’re removing/distancing the democracy from it.
      - myvoiceismypass 2y ago
        I am happy with a many of "the government" initiatives in my lifetime (which spans beyond your 84 threshold) that were enacted by one party (the one always cleaning up deficit messes), yes.

petesergeant 2y ago

Thailand managed something similar, an attempt to reform the law to be slightly more cannabis friendly, and ended up in some kind of legal limbo where it’s become unregulated in practice: https://time.com/6208192/thailand-war-on-drugs-weed-legal/ https://time.com/6208192/thailand-war-on-drugs-weed-legal/ Which is a big deal for a country that used to have exceptionally draconian laws about it.

alephnerd 2y ago
They revoked it within 2 years and are back to the old laws. Outside of the tourist/expat/backpacker bubble Thailand is very conservative. Neighboring Myanmar having Balkanized into multiple mini-narco states doesn't help either.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > and are back to the old laws Have you been to Thailand recently? Lower Sukhumvit is full of head shops. The “old laws” meant prison or worse for anyone selling it. There is indeed a new ban being suggested, to take place in 2025: https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/07/09/is-weed-still-legal-in-thailand-heres-what-tourists-need-to-know-as-government-u-turns https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/07/09/is-weed-still-leg...

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

Considering the groups looking to close the loophole, I can believe it was unintentional. Especially since this started as a project from Mitch McConnell to support his home industry. The end of the article notes how Florida is continuing to fight marijuana. …legislative battles at the state level. In early June, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launched a political-action committee to fight a state ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana. The very same week, he vetoed a bill that would have restricted hemp cannabinoids in the state.