US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill • Hacker News Board

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#181

Post by mmcconnell1618 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #180

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The division of states is somewhat arbitrary. Why shouldn't California, New York, Texas or Florida split into North/South or East/West versions to gain more Senators. I understand the compromise that the House represents people and the Senate represents states so the small states don't get overrun by the will of more populous states. But, by the same token, small states should not have so much power that they always overrun the will of the larger states. There should be balance. The House remains relatively in balance due to regular apportionment with the census. The Senate has no mechanism to make sure their power remains balanced. This is a gap that needs to be addressed.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#182

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

veritas3241 wrote: post #4

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #3

In a very partisan vote that will not survive the Senate. Apart from virtue signalling, why bother? We are post election, so it doesn't even help us decide how to vote. Trying this after January at least might've made more sense. It's frustrating we see full House votes on pointless partisan efforts when there are issues like infrastructure that both parties could and should agree on and progress in.

Pretty sure they're doing this to entice people to vote in the Georgia runoffs so Dems will control the Senate. "Vote for us and we can make this law."

I suppose this is reasonable, but then, why'd they wait until after the general?

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#183

Post by jadell » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

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?

That's not the modern Republican platform. Both major parties want stronger central government in some instances, and weaker in others. They just differ in which instances are which.

And they're like that because most people (voters in particular) are like that. Everyone wants stronger government control and regulation over the things they personally dislike, and less control over the things they do like, and they vote for the party that matches those preferences.

Most Republican voters like and dislike the same things, while Democratic voters tend to have much larger variability (outside a core set of things.) It's why the GOP has an easier time hanging on to power than the Democrats do.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#184

Post by jadell » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:18 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.

To be fair, most minority and underserved communities back in the 80s and 90s wanted the Dems to take a tough on crime stance, which is why the Dems shifted that way. For example, the crime bill that everyone loves to rag on Biden for voting for was written in cooperation with the input of Black community leaders and activists at the time. It's only in hindsight at the implementation and consequences of those policies that those communities are starting to shift away from that stance.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#185

Post by jadell » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #180

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state.

That was the original thinking, but the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but one where each member has a longer term and a hugely outsized influence compared to the number of people they represent.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#186

Post by jadell » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

kitotik wrote: post #38

dpflan wrote: post #11

Without knowing when the Senate will look at this and assuming after inauguration, I can see this as a carrot to get out youth vote in the upcoming Georgia senate run-off elections.

It’ll be DOA at the senate.

The House has shown the ability to pass it, which means that if the Dems can flip the Senate (using the GA election), then the House can pass it again next session and have it go to a more favorable Senate. This was less about getting it through Mitch McConnell's Senate, and more about signaling voters: this is what we can do if it's no longer Mitch McConnell's Senate.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#187

Post by CameronNemo » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:54 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #180

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you are explicitly saying that less populated states should override the will of the majority of Americans. That sounds like abuse, not balance.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#188

Post by veritas3241 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #182

veritas3241 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure they're doing this to entice people to vote in the Georgia runoffs so Dems will control the Senate. "Vote for us and we can make this law."

I suppose this is reasonable, but then, why'd they wait until after the general?

Multiple reasons, depending on your level of cynicism. Least cynical is that there were competing priorities in the general and the current President was (is) an overall distraction from any policy discussions. Most cynical is that Dems don't actually like winning because it gives them somebody to blame. Both are corporatist parties that don't generally work for the majority of people. But, like I said, that's the cynical take!

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#189

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

CameronNemo wrote: post #187

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you are explicitly saying that less populated states should override the will of the majority of Americans. That sounds like abuse, not balance.

If the needs of less populated states weren't considered, then there'd be no incentive for them to stay part of the nation. It's necessary for the political system to remain stable.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#190

Post by chillwaves » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

aisengard wrote: post #170

chillwaves wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you read my whole reply?

> 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.

And it's not all the democrats that support legalization. I bet you the democrats would not be able to pass this in the senate even if they had a majority. I would put a lot of money on this wager.

You can call things "horseshit" all you want, doesn't move the discussion forward.