21–30 of 147 posts
Weed is fine and all, but let's not overlook the other decisive victory, for right to repair!
I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…
With popular votes on the topic, everyone wins: people get what they want, and no legislator needs to grow the courage to stand up for it.
I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…
It's counter to "tough on crime" messaging, and for both parties, a lot of your reliable voters love "tough on crime" candidates.
Campaign contributions from groups interested in the status quo (law enforcement unions, private prison groups, pharmaceutical/tobacco/alcohol companies) also have an interest in funding the "No" campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drug prohibition benefits established power structures. It's the same reason why neither major party wants to enact universal healthcare, despite being generally acknowledged as more efficient in terms of care for the cost.
Does this mean states could enact universal healthcare from referendum, or are they barred from incurring tax raising consequences?
Universal healthcare is difficult due to the inability to actually nationalize health care providers without having your state's system overburdened by everyone from neighboring states which you're quite limited in restricting due to federal interstate commerce requirements. Also the federal government would probably come down hard on you.
I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…
I really wish there were also laws about not doing it in public spaces. I don't care if people do it in their own spaces, but when the smell wafts out onto the sidewalk, it makes me nauseous.
I agree with you that it is very obnoxious and super rude to be doing in an area close to other non-consenting people. I also think that a law about where you could smoke would inevitably be abused and not serve anyone: for example, is it really a police matter that you can smell your neighbors smoking weed, or that someone is doing it to near you in a park. I think we need to get away from this tattle tail mentality…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drug prohibition benefits established power structures. It's the same reason why neither major party wants to enact universal healthcare, despite being generally acknowledged as more efficient in terms of care for the cost.
Does this mean states could enact universal healthcare from referendum, or are they barred from incurring tax raising consequences?
I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…
It had to come from the people. Hollywood helped too, making weed smoking seem familiar, funny and harmless way before it was legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least it isn't hazardous like cigarette smoke. I really wish cigarettes were completely banned in public spaces. If you want to destroy your own lungs on your own property, fine. But I shouldn't have to breath it in.
Smoke is bad for you period. The chemicals and nicotine content is irrelevant.
Generally speaking "weed usage" introduces far fewer carcinogens compared to "cigarette usage" - but lots of things are bad for you including alcohol and, especially, sugar.