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

211–220 of 583 posts

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#211

Post by sleepybrett »

ramesh31 wrote: post #179
candiddevmike wrote: post #149

The party of small government killing a new, billion dollar industry because Mitch McConnell's state beverage is seeing declining sales.

>The party of small government killing a new, billion dollar industry because Mitch McConnell's state beverage is seeing declining sales. McConnel sponsored the original bill. Kentucky is historically one of the largest hemp producing states. The whole thing just shows how inept the entire administration is. DJT 45 signed the original law himself, after it was drafted and passed by his Republican house and senate.

Let's be clear McConnel isn't writing or doing anything. The man has been in a 'Weekend at Bernies' state for at least a couple of years. He's on camera being literally held up by his aides and seemingly having moments where he goes completely no communicative IN FRONT OF CAMERS several times, and not in a "I just don't have anything to say way" but just straight up 'freezing' in place. Either because of dementia or some kind of seizure.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#212

Post by viraptor »

billy99k wrote: post #188
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was because of the tit-for-tat with Canada. I'd think a joint and a glass of bourbon would go hand-in-hand. Personally, I don't drink or smoke, but I think the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure that has been, for the most part, a footgun.

I disagree. Legalizing drugs has only created larger black markets in states like California and allowed cartels to legally get into the business and gain more power in other countries.

Can you explain how legalisation created larger black markets? Got some stats for that?

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#213

Post by insane_dreamer »

It's absolutely insane how unrelated provisions can be inserted into a CR instead of being debated and passed on their own merits (or bundled with related laws).

Regardless of what the measure is, or what party it's coming from, it's a significant flaw in the process.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#214

Post by tbrownaw »

giantg2 wrote: post #142
mjamesaustin wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair, would be unhappy if we transitioned to a system where all voters have an equal amount of political power. 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. Our current system is a crazy double standard, and inherently unfair.

"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…

> Why is it not fair for each state to have equal representation?

Some people aren't used to thinking of states as relevant sovereign entities.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#215

Post by cthalupa »

giantg2 wrote: post #142
mjamesaustin wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair, would be unhappy if we transitioned to a system where all voters have an equal amount of political power. 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. Our current system is a crazy double standard, and inherently unfair.

"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 on Presidential elections as well.

The deck is stacked in favor of rural states in too many places for it to be balanced. Repeal the PAA and I am much more sympathetic to the idea that the Senate as it stands is fine.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#217

Post by MichaelZuo »

whimsicalism wrote: post #106
giantg2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Political power should absolutely be proportional to population represented though." That's your opinion. The opinion of people in Wyoming is likely different. What the facts would show if you look into the history of why the Senate was necessary, it would show that smaller states wouldn't have joined, and would be justified in leaving. The real problem is that the scope of decisions at the federal level has gotten…

Yes, in case you didn't notice, everything we are stating is opinions. I absolutely reject the notion that the senator from Wyoming should have equal political power to the senator from Texas or California, I think it is absurd, I don't doubt that some people in Wyoming disagree. I think Wyoming joining the US as a state without equal representation as the most populous state would still be a massive win for them and…

If you understand your just opining to other user’s opining… why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s?

Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument?

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#218

Post by Glyptodon »

dehrmann wrote: post #120
dangus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has almost 3,000 house members. The UK has almost 1,500 parliament members with a far smaller population. The US also has state representatives in every state. This idea that a large amount of representatives can’t govern is plainly false. Even a modest increase in representative count would go a long way to make America more democratic and lessen the impacts of gerrymandering.

> This idea that a large amount of representatives can’t govern is plainly false. Design by committee is a well-known failure mode. I'd argue that once the size of the house (or maybe one party's seats) gets past Dunbar's number, the house becomes less effective.

The main reason I think this is wrong is that the sheer amount of different things the government needs to pay attention to in the modern world is staggering. In my view, it is well beyond what a few hundred reps can pay attention to. I think if you scale it, what you end up with is that representatives can be more specialized in ways that align with their constituency instead of being bad generalists.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#219

Post by mothballed »

mrguyorama wrote: post #180
mullingitover wrote: post #10

[flagged]

Why is the hemp ban shady at all? Using farm bill hemp to produce CBD and THC is not the intended point of that bill. Plenty of states have set up actual, real legalized cannabis industries that benefit from regulation (like required mold testing). The products created from this oversight are a dumb loophole. If you want cannabis, just vote for people to legalize it, it's really not hard. The only reason it continues…

> Plenty of states have set up actual, real legalized cannabis industries that benefit from regulation (like required mold testing).

None of that cannabis is federally legal either, and relies on the same precarious position that 'hemp' industry will still be in of operating a massive ongoing criminal enterprise. It's just that rather than legalize the 'real' cannabis the big cannabis lobby and their politicians settled for swiping at their hemp competitor and make them go on the black market too so they could better capture the profits, as evidenced by the fact even 'legal' weed state senators voted to put 'hemp' in the same illegal category their illegal 'legal' weed sits in.

In fact, under the old hemp rules, there was pending federal regulatory framework for testing hemps products (they were still operating under deferred DEA testing regime, so currently testing is largely being done privately with COAs being furnished by most CBD farms, if you have even the slightest concern you can order from a vendor with full contamination reports and chemical breakdown). For marijuana, absolutely no federal requirement as it's just illegal with no provision. So the situation is the exact opposite as you had concerned, with regard to the part of government we are speaking of.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#220

Post by InTheArena »

mschuster91 wrote: post #197
iammjm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar thing can be observed in Germany: the most anti-cannabis state is the state that produces the most alcohol (Bavaria)

That's less because Bavaria makes beer, otherwise the wine states would also impede cannabis. The problem is that Söder and his CSU are obviously following the old Nixon attitude of targetting cannabis to hit left-wings [1]: > You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with hero…

You realize that this statement was completely fabricated by a legalization proponent, correct? No historian takes that "quote" seriously.
Post reply on HN