US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill • Hacker News Board

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#171

Post by t-writescode » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #72

t-writescode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is democratic, just not the sort one might expect. It’s a democracy of the states. That’s by design. The House is an approximate democracy of the people in the states (with some weighting so that the most populous states don’t have a complete monopoly) and the senate is a democracy of the states. Together they form an approximate republic of the country’s opinion... in an ideal world.

> It is democratic, No it's not. > It’s a democracy of the states. The “demo-” in “democracy” means something, and it's not “the states”. If you mean “its a majoritarian body of which the constituents are States”, that's partly true (although in some ways the Senate is nonmajoritarian), but that is, by definition , not a “democracy”.

This response frustrates me because while it's technically correct, I think it misses what I was saying entirely.

My perception of what the OP was going for was a complain that the Senate is, in some way and not representing anything - just arbitrary wills.

It is representing something, though. It's the second half of congress and it's meant to represent the will of the states as a whole.

Calling it a "majoritarian body of which the constituents are states", while technically correct, is full of sufficiently advanced language as to lose meaning in regular conversation.

Instead, I explained how it is equal representation, of sorts - the things that are being represented are the states, so it is fair, of sorts.

It's easier for a person who doesn't want to read a set of scholarly words to think "oh, so it's a democracy, except all the states are people" than it is to break down each word - at least, I think it is, which is why I worded it that way.

Also in their statement, I assumed, was an assumption that it's unfair and therefore the Senate is worthless and should be abolished because it ignores everyone's will - even when working properly - so, I tried to compact that in there, as well, by trying to bring implications that the United States of America is not just a collective of people, but it's also a collective of states and each of them desires representation in our democracy.

I guess, thank you for the etymology lesson, but it missed my whole point.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#172

Post by tick_tock_tick » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:58 PM UTC

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #119

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a really good point Democrats were almost universally against gay marriage until it cross the public support threshold. Looks at the stark difference between Obama on gay marriage in his first vs second term. If the polling shows enough people support it Democrats will pretty quickly flip to the support side of the issue if it goes anything like marriage.

To a certain extent, that's how representative government is intended to work.

For sure this should be considered a feature not a bug.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#173

Post by jacques_chester » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 12:45 AM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #154

jacques_chester wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries As I understand it, the US Congress has the power to withdraw from any treaty with legislation without restriction[0], by passing an Act that repeals the effect of the treaty. "Parliament | Congress cannot bind its future self" is a well-settled Common Law principle. Treaties receive no special status. While they may be negotiate…

Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at - that full legalization could nullify a number of treaties, so it's not just a thing that stands on its own. Congress can absolutely do it, but it's complicated.

Gotcha.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#174

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #171

dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is democratic, No it's not. > It’s a democracy of the states. The “demo-” in “democracy” means something, and it's not “the states”. If you mean “its a majoritarian body of which the constituents are States”, that's partly true (although in some ways the Senate is nonmajoritarian), but that is, by definition , not a “democracy”.

This response frustrates me because while it's technically correct, I think it misses what I was saying entirely. My perception of what the OP was going for was a complain that the Senate is, in some way and not representing anything - just arbitrary wills. It is representing something, though. It's the second half of congress and it's meant to represent the will of the states as a whole. Calling it a "majoritarian b…

> equal representation, of sorts - the things that are being represented are the states, so it is fair, of sorts.

Equal representation of things that aren't the individual citizens is not democracy, and is in fact opposed to democracy; and "fair, of sorts" is orthogonal to democracy.

Yes, democracy is a more convenient term and concept than many of those that might be accurately applied to the Senate, but its not even remotely accurate when applied to the Senate, which is deliberately not merely non-democratic, but actively anti-democratic.

If you want to argue that the design of the Senate is useful or good or fair in some way, go ahead and do that, but don't expect to use "democracy" for that purpose without argument just because its a warm fuzzy word that is more convenient than any word with equally positive general reception that accurately applies to the Senate.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#175

Post by mindslight » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:59 AM UTC

knaq wrote: post #168

aisengard wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "def…

[flagged]

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#176

Post by bigbubba » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:21 AM UTC

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #144

mrguyorama wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name them. The reason weed will not be legalized in America with this bill is solely, and only, the fault of Republicans

Precisely. Republicans refuse to hold a vote for dozens of life changing bills. This is currently the abject failure of a single party.

Whether it's seen as a failing or a victory is probably a matter of perspective. Republicans probably feel they've been somewhat successful with this obstructionism.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#177

Post by mullingitover » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:27 AM UTC

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #164

amalter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alabama saw a similar increase in violent crime in the same period, sans legalization. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is more than a spurious correlation.

I'm also not seeing any significant increase in insurance rates after my state ended prohibition, and the traffic fatalities and collisions haven't been significantly impacted.

What explanation do you propose for why cannabis legalization would lead to an increase in violent crime?

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#178

Post by ac29 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:49 AM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #26

nip180 wrote: post #15

2/3 of Americans support legalizing cannabis. I don’t understand why this bill is so bipartisan among politicians if so many citizens support it.

Wild accusation: Follow the money. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of private prisons, generally in red states.

Private prisons held only 8.2% of inmates in 2017, with many states having zero use at all. Looking at the map, it doesn't appear there is much of a divide between red and blue states in terms of likelihood to use private prisons, or the percentage of prisoners held in them.

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#179

Post by ac29 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:03 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #72

t-writescode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is democratic, just not the sort one might expect. It’s a democracy of the states. That’s by design. The House is an approximate democracy of the people in the states (with some weighting so that the most populous states don’t have a complete monopoly) and the senate is a democracy of the states. Together they form an approximate republic of the country’s opinion... in an ideal world.

> It is democratic, No it's not. > It’s a democracy of the states. The “demo-” in “democracy” means something, and it's not “the states”. If you mean “its a majoritarian body of which the constituents are States”, that's partly true (although in some ways the Senate is nonmajoritarian), but that is, by definition , not a “democracy”.

Looking at the latin or greek roots of the word is fine from a historical context, but I cant find any definition of democracy that doesnt sound somewhat like this one: "Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives". Its going to take a real stretch to not have the US fit that definition, whether or not you like how the Senate works, or find it fair.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#180

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #151

whythre wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem isn't that we're a representative democracy. The problem is the ratio of representation is very far off from the ratios present when the country was formed. The population growth in urban centers combined with the addition of many states with low population has shifted power significantly to a minority. When the United States was formed and the compromise for 2 Senators per state and house representatives…

The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state. Without the balance, highly populous states would determine the fate of the entire nation, leaving less populated states behind.