US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill • Hacker News Board

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#161

Post by souprock » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #149

qw3rty01 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just an echo chamber, there's actual data: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-... That's not to say people who oppose the legislation's vote doesn't matter, but it's overturned by the majority that favor it.

It's important to keep in mind that it's not as clear as many of these headlines make it sound. By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, wh…

For medical use only, it is already legal at the federal level. The generic name is Dronabinol. It is marketed as Marinol and Syndros.

Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#162

Post by amalter » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #156

grecy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization? I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.

> I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still d…

This is a very interesting document, but where does it discuss a 20% increase in violent crime? I read the section about organized crime involved with cultivation and assume that bring some violent elements.

While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#163

Post by souprock » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #156

grecy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization? I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.

> I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still d…

I think it's reasonable to ask if the people are the same. Who has moved into or out of Colorado? I've heard that initially, large numbers of marijuana users moved to Colorado. They may have different average behavior than the previous population of Colorado, with or without marijuana of any legality.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#164

Post by curiousgeorgio » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

amalter wrote: post #162

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still d…

This is a very interesting document, but where does it discuss a 20% increase in violent crime? I read the section about organized crime involved with cultivation and assume that bring some violent elements. While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.

Page 160, direct quote:

"violent crime increased 20% from 2012 to 2017"

If you graph the data presented in table 46, the increasing trend – specifically in violent crime since 2012 – becomes very clear.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#165

Post by curiousgeorgio » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

souprock wrote: post #161

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to keep in mind that it's not as clear as many of these headlines make it sound. By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, wh…

For medical use only, it is already legal at the federal level. The generic name is Dronabinol. It is marketed as Marinol and Syndros. Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)

> Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest.

100% agree.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#166

Post by Redoubts » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

whythre wrote: post #90

CameronNemo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans don't make laws (or approve judges), Senators do. <16% of the US population elects 50 senators.

It’s almost like the US is a representational republic, not a democracy.

Good thing most states weren't drawn to lock up land in a slave vs free state battle that is 150 years over and done with, or this would be a ridiculous comment.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#167

Post by BHSPitMonkey » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:54 PM UTC

seanieb wrote: post #7

Great to see the worsening COVID crisis getting the attention it deserves...

We sure could reduce a lot of unnecessary spread by having people no longer physically moved in and out of police cars, jails, courthouses, and prisons for no good reason.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#168

Post by knaq » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

aisengard wrote: post #100

bransonf wrote: post #55

> not expected to advance further as long as the Senate remains in Republican hands. > “This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. It stops the federal government from interfering with what states have decided to do” In all seriousness, isn’t the Republican platform weaker central government? Why the exception?

Because the Republican party is, really more than anything else at this point, the party of white supremacy. Marijuana laws help prop up the existing paradigm, where black people are disproportionally harmed, a leftover (intentional) remnant of Nixon's inherently racist War On Drugs. Repealing that would help black people more than white people, thus the Republicans are against it.

I wouldn't say so. Just looking at what Biden did as a senator:

In 1983 he introduced the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, which became law in 1984. That's the main piece of law that enabled civil asset forfeiture. That's how cops take property, alleging it to be drug money without any evidence. It's legalized theft, turning cops into gangs that prey on the people. Black neighborhoods are popular targets. Note that "defund the cops" will make them rely more on this source of revenue!

In 1994 he introduced the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This is the infamous law that put many black people in prison for decades, particularly for crack cocaine. (meanwhile his own son smokes crack with impunity, aside from being tossed out of the Navy) Kamala Harris used the law very often as prosecutor. She warned against leniency, saying that she needed the prisoners to fight California wildfires. In other words, she wanted black slaves. It took Donald Trump to fix this problem, with him signing the First Step Act in 2018.

It really does seem that the facts are the other way around.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#169

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:06 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #95

mullingitover wrote: post #86

The fact that this won't sail through congress in a week (it'll never even come up for a vote in the senate) really illustrates how out of touch legislators are with voters. If there was a nationwide referendum on legalizing (not just decriminalizing) it would pass in a landslide today. Instead, congress will dither on this issue for probably the next five years at minimum. I realize it's more complicated than giving…

> and fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries I'd be fascinated to know which countries. Obviously Mexico and Canada couldn't care less. Which other ones haven't already moved on?

> Which other ones haven't already moved on?

Most of the countries in the world (some places still make posession of small quantities of cannabis a potentially-capital offense); the treaties involved are global drug-control treaties.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#170

Post by aisengard » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #121

ogre_codes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on drugs has been a long Republican policy, right along with family values.

To be fair, centrist dems seem to have eagerly embraced it in the 90s. Maybe that's what it took to win elections, but the democrats have bought into this false narrative almost as much as the Republicans, to the point the distinction is just not meaningful. I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.

Democrats literally just led a charge to pass marijuana legalization on the federal level. This "both sides" horseshit is insane.