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

U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#51

Post by modoc »

cronix wrote: post #18

Now that half the states have already legalized it and reaps a ton in tax revenue, the fed wants their cut at a time when tax revenue is drying up. These states have been ignoring federal law for a very long time now, without consequence, so there might as well not be that law if you're not going to actually enforce it.

I'm not sure the federal tax revenue is the big motivator here. Currently most (all?) cannabis operations are paying MASSIVE federal taxes under rule 280E. Federally legalizing should substantially reduce the effective federal tax rate on the cannabis industry.

Now, you might offset that by having MORE cannabis business revenue nationally, instead of just in the legalized states, but don't think the IRS isn't getting their piece of the pie already....

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#52

Post by pionar »

epicureanideal wrote: post #44
Bhilai wrote: post #5

> would expunge federal non-violent marijuana crimes, further medical research and allow cannabis companies access to essential financial services. Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.

As someone who is not registered to either political party, I don't think the Republicans are really just obstructionists for the sake of it. In many cases they have their own reasons for being against certain laws. Also, this isn't the 80s-90s. The religious right is much less influential. I could see a bunch of Republicans getting on board with decriminalization if the Democrats phrased it the right way. Unfortunat…

I can't disagree with your first sentence more. The current crop of legislators, both D and R, have shown that they're not above opposing something just because the other side came up with it.

And I do think that evangelicals still have quite a stranglehold on the party, but they have more pressing priorities.

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#53

Post by _jal »

epicureanideal wrote: post #44
Bhilai wrote: post #5

> would expunge federal non-violent marijuana crimes, further medical research and allow cannabis companies access to essential financial services. Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.

As someone who is not registered to either political party, I don't think the Republicans are really just obstructionists for the sake of it. In many cases they have their own reasons for being against certain laws. Also, this isn't the 80s-90s. The religious right is much less influential. I could see a bunch of Republicans getting on board with decriminalization if the Democrats phrased it the right way. Unfortunat…

Multiple Republicans in positions to know what their policy is have repeatedly stated that they see obstructionism as their path back to political control.

You don't need to be a cynic, just listen to what they're saying.

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#54

Post by yupper32 »

easton wrote: post #49
yupper32 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting, moving out, getting medical care, and marriage generally don't negatively impact your body and brain. Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said. (And getting drafted... well that should just go away all togethe…

Cigarettes are 21 in the US as of three years or so ago.

Holy hell you're right. How did I not know that/forget that?

Guess it shows how much smoking cigarettes has been reduced in society (or how out of touch I am...).

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#55

Post by gzer0 »

I find it amusing that "weed" is on the same tier of drugs as Heroin, LSD, MDMA and it is an entire class above Cocaine, fentanyl, oxycodone [1].

Schedule I drugs

— High abuse potential.

— There is no accepted use for these drugs in medical practice.

— They cannot be prescribed.

— Drugs include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline.

Schedule II drugs — High potential for abuse and dependence.

— Generally require non-refillable, written prescription.

— Drugs include morphine , codeine , methadone , oxycodone , hydromorphone , meperidine , fentanyl , cocaine...

[1] https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_...

Note: the above is a free version of UpToDate (physician portal that is widely used in the field.)

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#56

Post by cronix »

pm90 wrote: post #37
cronix wrote: post #18

Now that half the states have already legalized it and reaps a ton in tax revenue, the fed wants their cut at a time when tax revenue is drying up. These states have been ignoring federal law for a very long time now, without consequence, so there might as well not be that law if you're not going to actually enforce it.

Money doesn't seem to be a motivating factor for Democrats. I believe decriminalizing marijuana related crimes is likely higher on the agenda. Regardless of what states have done, without Federal legalization, marijuana businesses are cut off from most financial products provided by the "mainstream" financial institutions, including aid from the Federal Government during emergencies (e.g. the current pandemic). So th…

Cannabis was considered an essential industry in Oregon during the pandemic. They, along with state run alcohol stores, were exempt from shutdowns. Recreational drugs are essential here. Most states that have legalized it also have a component for relief on past non-violent crimes, although true, doesn't affect the federal level crimes (which they hardly prosecute anymore since legalization - you have to be very egregious).

When Oregon first started its recreational program in 2016, they collected about $20M in taxes [1]. In 2020, it was $133M. Other states are similar. It has a lot to do with $$$, it always does. Politicians sell ideas using emotions, but we have to dig deeper.

[1] https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/F...

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#58

Post by tester756 »

yupper32 wrote: post #30
galangalalgol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the same number that lets you vote, and decide where you live, or get drafted, and get married without parental consent, and get medical care without parental consent?

Voting, moving out, getting medical care, and marriage generally don't negatively impact your body and brain. Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said. (And getting drafted... well that should just go away all togethe…

then coca cola and energy drinks like monster/red bull should be for 21 too?

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#59

Post by pionar »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #23

I hope this means it can be purchased online and mailed easily. Right now municipalities have taken the opportunity to tax it overzealously, and we could use some competition on that front.

Do you not think that municipalities will still find a way to collect that? Remember the fight over state sales tax w/internet purchases a few years ago?

Re: U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed

#60

Post by kube-system »

duxup wrote: post #26
frankbreetz wrote: post #3

>>He added that marijuana use needs more research. I wish that we had this same attitude towards chemicals sprayed on crops where it seems to be everything is fine until proven to be harmful. Yet with weed it is harmful until proven safe. Also, I suspect there is plenty of research on the safety of weed edit: to all of those arguing that there may be/ are dangers to weed, I don't disagree. How about the fact that I c…

I don't disagree but I do think if we're talking about smoking something we do want to find out if it has any of the associated risks smoking tobacco does. There are similarities and differences and as far as I know not a good conclusion on that topic.

Putting any burnt solids in your lungs is almost certainly bad. However, this bill isn't about smoking, it's about possession and commercialization.
Post reply on HN