US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill • Hacker News Board

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#191

Post by tatersolid » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 12:51 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #177

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Our auto insurance rates went up significantly in Illinois recently, likely correlated with legalization.

Anecdotally, the people I know who use marijuana drive high regularly and don’t think that doing so is dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#192

Post by prossercj » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 8:19 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #142

panda-giddiness wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There is a single person blocking this vote. I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill. If fact, if you include both chambers of Congress, mor…

> I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill. I thought it went without saying which specific party in the legislative branch is out of touch with the voters, but yes, this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual. Passing this bill in the house now, when the control of the Senate hangs on an…

> this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual

Why do you believe that history takes sides?

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#193

Post by weedahol » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 3:44 AM UTC

prossercj wrote: post #192

mullingitover wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill. I thought it went without saying which specific party in the legislative branch is out of touch with the voters, but yes, this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual. Passing this bill in the house now, when the control of the Senate hangs on an…

> this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual Why do you believe that history takes sides?

It's not so much that history is a living force that has ideas of its own irrespective of people; but that history is going to be written by people into books and the majority of people living today are going to impose their interpretation of the now into the eventual "then" that kids 20 years from now are going to be forced to read.

Re: US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill

#194

Post by CameronNemo » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #189

CameronNemo wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is not. Less populated states are a drop in the bucket. If you care about stability, you best not disenfranchise the majority of Americans. There are consequences for such blatant and persistent abuse.