Cannabis is legal in most US states but federal laws block businesses from banks

Post by kube-system » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

jjulius wrote: post #125

kube-system wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is effectively legal federally It is not "effectively legal". You cannot do any of these while possessing and/or using marijuana: * Pass federal employment drug tests * ̶F̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶e̶ * Buy a gun etc.

Yes, you absolutely can fly with it. TSA has gone on the record, at least in local newspapers, stating that they defer to local police if they find cannabis. If it's for personal use, local PD won't do anything other than suggest you throw it away or else risk punishment if you're flying somewhere legal. I've researched this extensively before flying out of specific airports in legal states up and down the west coast…

Post by greggarious » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #44

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #27

UN has moved to stop resticting it's use for medicinal purposes, but it is still banned for private consumption. As a signatory to the UN drugs convention, US has voted againsy decriminalisation. This is a clumsy summary, ANAL https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079132

Welp, Canada has ignored that convention and has yet to receive the first or final steps of a UN response: a strongly worded letter. Safe to say we can all ignore that treaty with impunity. edit: Oh and the sky didn’t fall either. If anything, the opposite: marijuana isn’t a cool edgy thing anymore. You just do it if you want to, or don’t if you don’t. The black market still exists, but prices have cratered, so assum…

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #119

gamegoblin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.

> both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.

Post by kube-system » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

33955985 wrote: post #132

kube-system wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picked those examples specifically because they are enforced. > Regarding drugs and guns — how is that enforced? Can’t see how a gun dealer would know. All gun dealers must record form ATF form 4473 for each gun purchase, which specifically asks questions about drug use. If you say yes, you will be denied the gun. If you lie, you may face up to 5 years in prison plus $10K fines. If your state has a medical marijuan…

Circling back to your original point, then: the headline’s framing is misleading because it leaves out potential gun buyers and people applying to federal jobs? Seems like an awfully small minority to be concerned with in… a headline for a national newspaper. How would you write the headline?

Post by godelski » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 6:27 PM UTC

gamegoblin wrote: post #16

Prediction: Dems will make a move on federal legalization in the months before the 2024 presidential election, or at least make federal legalization a major election issue. A lot of right wing / libertarian adjacent people were hoping Trump would come out in favor of it as a 2020 election issue, to outflank Biden on at least one issue. It didn't happen, but I bet it would have made the election a bit closer -- it wou…