Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

hightimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 583 posts

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#471

Post by kulahan »

par1970 wrote: post #289
kulahan wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate is not the group meant to represent the people , so why would you think OP is arguing this?

I think OP is arguing that because they literally said "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body." What do you think they are arguing?

Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people. So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#472

Post by mothballed »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #386
mothballed wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One in my state is solar panel legislation. You can't install solar panels in AZ without a permit and building plans and roof plans. That's all well and good in the city, but here in bumfuck nowhere I built a house with no building plans or roof plans. Why exactly did the majority of city dwellers pass this law without even considering people like me in bumfuck nowhere, who have as much or higher utility for solar pa…

> The answer is they didn't even think about us, they just did it. Asserted without evidence. Many parts of the USA until sometime in the 1980s had no building codes. Now many of them do (some still go without). Society has made a slow and steady move towards saying, in effect "whatever and wherever you build, we want to be certain that it meets a set of minimum design and construction standards, and we justify this…

The state has no law about me connecting to the electric grid without any building plans, drawings, or inspection. In fact I did so. That's more connected to others than solar panels are.

Just solar panels. They simply forgot.

FYI i built the house after the solar panel law passed. So it's not like it's an old house that needs brought up to modern code or something.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#473

Post by CalChris »

rootusrootus wrote: post #369
the_gastropod wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“No gerrymandering”. Wut? The Senate is the most egregious example of anti-democratic systems in any country you could reasonably call democratic. It’s far worse than the worst examples of gerrymandering.

I get what you are saying, but I think gerrymandering is a specific thing -- voters being chosen rather than being the ones to choose. You pick the state you want to live in, and the boundaries are not going to change. But at least every 10 years the congressional district you live in may change without you having any say. So it is definitely worse though I think the lopsided representation due to the senate is prett…

> voters being chosen rather than being the ones to choose

With the Missouri Compromise, when territories were admitted, their voters were being chosen for political reasons. Territories were admitted two by two, slave holding and free to maintain a status quo. This falls under your definition of gerrymandering.

There is no justification for this gerrymandering. There's nothing so great about Wyoming such that it should have such an outsized influence on the body politic while possessing the GDP of a mid-sized county.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#474

Post by chimeracoder »

mothballed wrote: post #368
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have CA's props than an elected congressman who ignores the will of the people

Why not a mixture of both? CA for instance had their populace vote to ban gay marriage in prop 8, CA then just told the voters to go fuck themselves and tied it up and overturned it in court. So you can see even if you literally amend the constitution in california by popular referendum, those in power can just tell the populace to go fuck themselves and they won't be recognizing it, no matter that the constitution i…

> Why not a mixture of both? CA for instance had their populace vote to ban gay marriage in prop 8, CA then just told the voters to go fuck themselves and tied it up and overturned it in court.

> So you can see even if you literally amend the constitution in california by popular referendum, those in power can just tell the populace to go fuck themselves and they won't be recognizing it, no matter that the constitution is the supreme law of the state.

Your argument would make sense if the courts had overturned Prop 8 on the basis that it was unconstitutional at the state level. But that's not what happened.

The state case against Prop 8 was upheld by the courts. The federal courts ruled against it, in a completely separate case, on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause in the US constitution. Prop 8 amended the state constitution; it did not amend the US constitution.

It's also a moot point, because Prop 8 was also repealed by a subsequent ballot initiative, with 61% of the vote.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#475

Post by par1970 »

kulahan wrote: post #471
par1970 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think OP is arguing that because they literally said "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body." What do you think they are arguing?

Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people. So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states , or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?

Maybe we are talking past one another.

> Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people.

I haven't claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people. I also haven't claimed that OP claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people.

> So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?

He didn't say either of those things. He said this "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people."

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#476

Post by Tadpole9181 »

AngryData wrote: post #452
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #389

Where'd all this abolish the senate nonsense come from recently? I get people have been complaining about 'flyover' states for a while now, but the Republicans also have the majority in the House at the moment. At least wait until the House doesn't represent the current majority party in the Senate (like it almost certainly will again eventually) to make that argument. I'm mildly worried that it's just an attempt to…

Because people want an excuse to blame our problems on, and people living in big cities think they should be able to better dictate law as they often view poor rural people and their lives with contempt. And many politicians are happy to go along with because it means more power for themselves and less restrictions on how they use it. Real solutions to the imbalance would be to split up big states into more smaller s…

> people living in big cities think they should be able to better dictate law as they often view poor rural people and their lives with contempt.

Or they want to live in a democracy where every single person is represented equally to every single other person. And not a system where some people are "more equal" to others.

That's not even getting into how this weirdly, strangely seems to align up with a history of slavery and racism in the US. Total coincidence that some people think it's fair those "urban people" get 3/5 of a vote compared to them, the enlightened farmers who need to save others from themselves.

And before you say "well the house and electoral college are proportional" - no, they absolutely are not since 1929. Try that talking point when the apportionment act is repealed.

Nor are districts even conceivably "local" anymore for those arguing about "personal governance".

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#477

Post by Tadpole9181 »

hemp_is_canvas wrote: post #60

I've been a regular consumer of the results of this since about 2020 when I discovered it. It's been quite the journey watching the industry boom and evolve and get better and better. I've seen an incredible incredible amount of ignorance on this topic. Prior to this, I found 1 comment on HN mentioning this last night. On reddit, it's not on the frontpage of r/politics, r/moderatepolitics or anything relevant. I can…

I mean, were you posting to draw attention to it? How would people know if the people who do know aren't spreading it? Most people don't read bills themselves and it's no news that US media is captured by billionaires and special interests...

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#478

Post by giantg2 »

cthalupa wrote: post #215
giantg2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair," Who determines what is fair? Why is it not fair for each state to have equal representation? "This point is always brought up as if it's inherently bad for rural concerns to get overruled by urban ones, but TOTALLY FINE if urban concerns get overruled by rural ones." The urban ones have more power in the house as that chamber is designed to repre…

The problem with this argument is the Permanent Apportionment Act. The House is more representative of the people than the Senate, but capping the size means that as it stands lower population states still receive an outsized amount of power per capita in the House vs. more populous states. As electoral votes are based on Congressional representatives across the two chambers, this also means they have outsized impact…

The Huntington-Hill method used since the 40s has supposedly reduced any discrepancies.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#479

Post by cthalupa »

henryfjordan wrote: post #470
cthalupa wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand how this is particularly nefarious. It complies with the law as written, and results in a significantly better product for those choosing to consume it.

If it was a textile-style-hemp farmer getting the last few bucks out of their crop via a loophole, that I can understand. Not great, but I can rationalize it. Someone growing the same plant that is regulated by California but decides they don't need testing or licenses is just plain anti-social. You can't not know you're doing something wrong in that case.

Most of the sales are in states where marijuana has not been legalized, from my understanding.

I'm more concerned with ending an absurd prohibition, personally.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#480

Post by tharne »

harles wrote: post #380
mothballed wrote: post #46

Even the legal weed state senators were voting for this. It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. This ensures profits are captured by the wealthy rather than small family type setups. Wealthy former hemp companies will shift to the "legal" weed market,…

> It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. That’s a big assertion that needs evidence. I’m strongly in favor of legalization but not deregulation. It was a pretty big loophole that allowed what’s essentially weed to sidestep the regulation their competit…

> That’s a big assertion that needs evidence.

It really doesn't. It's well a well-established fact that heavy regulations favor larger enterprises over smaller ones.

Post reply on HN