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

511–520 of 583 posts

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#511

Post by whimsicalism »

Terr_ wrote: post #310
whimsicalism wrote: post #4

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. There’s no getting around this and it will structurally just get worse and worse. Simply no way something like it exists 200 years from now, it is probably the biggest flaw in the US political structure right now.

Equal State representation in the Senate is on the shortlist of things that is practically impossible to amend [0], but I propose a workaround: Amend the state-formation rules [1] so that any state may subdivide without Senate approval , provided that (A) it occurs entirely within its existing borders and (B) no subdivision is smaller (less-populous) than the smallest current state. This means small states don't have…

i think we should just swear in every US citizen as a supreme court justice and then have 157,382,103-50,373,281 rulings on whatever issues we want to put to a plebiscite

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#512

Post by nobody9999 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #425
hollywood_court wrote: post #54

[flagged]

> The party of small government strikes again The GOP hasn't been a party of small government since W. Bush. And it hasn't really claimed to be as much since Trump 1.

>The GOP hasn't been a party of small government since W. Bush. And it hasn't really claimed to be as much since Trump 1.

That's not even close to being true. The "Two Santas" strategy[0] has been in place since at least Reagan's first term.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski#The_Two_Santa_Cl...

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#513

Post by giobox »

0xTJ wrote: post #455
gwbas1c wrote: post #209

All of this stuff is already built around loopholes. > But the provision that was inserted into the government funding bill makes illegal any hemp product that contains more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. Now the online "hemp" industry will shift to selling gummies in "containers" that really equate to individually wrapped. You'll get bulk discounts for buying groups of 30 "containers", but what you get wi…

0.4 mg is an extremely low amount. The as far as I understand (and have seen) the limit of THC in Ontario is 10 mg/container for gummies. Some companies will get around that limit by packaging multiple 10 mg THC bags together. While it's annoying and definitely creates more waste than is needed, 10 mg is a relatively reasonable limit. Most people aren't going to consume more than 10 mg THC worth of gummies in one sit…

> Most people aren't going to consume more than 10 mg THC worth of gummies in one sitting (at least if they're getting something government-sactioned)

In CA, WA and CO, almost every single individual gummie is 10mg (up to 100mg in the pack, the state limit, so usually 10 gummies in a pack). I rarely see individual servings under 10mg ever, its not common.

People in these states routinely consume more than 10mgs in a single sitting - its just two gummies.

10mg for an entire pack of edibles strikes me as extremely low - shared with friends, none of you are getting that high...

> https://app.leg.wa.gov/Wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-095

> https://cannabis.colorado.gov/responsible-use/safety-with-ed...

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#514

Post by wara23arish »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #444
gspencley wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This works very well for the local wealth crowd It works well for everyone. The problem with government that is for and by the people, is that wealthy people are people too. You're effectively saying that because you're worried about the "local wealth crowd" "capturing" government, you would prefer to make change in government more difficult and representation farther removed for everyone. It's not clear how that w…

> The problem with government that is for and by the people, is that wealthy people are people too. No, this is not a problem with government for and by the people. It is, however, a problem in a system in which economic power (read: wealth) translates (often almost literally) into political power for individuals. Rich people deserve a vote just like everyone else - but nothing more. > you would prefer to make change…

Isn’t the problem the same with both systems but one just scales a lot better and is more dangerous?

Im intrigued by why you believe federal level should override local variations. It seems so counter intuitive.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#517

Post by wat10000 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #439
wat10000 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do those political scientists say that it has to be so extremely unequal in its representation? Right now, the least representative parts of our government are the ones pushing towards illiberality and populism. "Better democracy can be dangerous" really falls flat when our existing worse democracy is actively being dangerous.

> the least representative parts of our government are the ones pushing towards illiberality and populism Source? The President and--until like 24 hours ago--the House have been leading the charge on illiberalism and populism.

The Supreme Court is leading the charge. The presidency is a close second. Congress is pretty much just watching.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#519

Post by wat10000 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #466
wat10000 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the Senate can't pass things without a 60% majority, despite that not being a thing in the constitution, is just another facet of its undemocratic nature. The body has decided for itself, no matter what the people want or what the constitution says. And this is definitely not a necessary aspect of the system. Even if you want to argue that the Senate itself is essential, the ridiculous modern filibuster…

> body has decided for itself, no matter what the people want or what the constitution says All representative bodies have rules. They have to in order to function. The House, like the Senate, has rules. And both of them can amend them by simple majority. (Until recently, the public didn't have a particular opinion on the filibuster [1].) > the ridiculous modern filibuster demonstrably is not, since it only became th…

> All representative bodies have rules. They have to in order to function. The House, like the Senate, has rules. And both of them can amend them by simple majority.

You're missing the point. Of course they have rules. But to effectively make it so that you need 60% to pass anything is very different from ordinary parliamentary rules.

> (Until recently, the public didn't have a particular opinion on the filibuster [1].)

Until recently, the Senate filibuster was completely different from what we have now. It used to be something that sometimes allowed Senators to make a show of delaying legislation. This thing where nearly nothing can be passed without 60 votes is new.

> The filibuster has only been invoked this session around this budget dispute.

This means nothing. The rule isn't a secret. Things that couldn't achieve 60 votes will generally not be brought up in the first place, since it would be a waste of time.

If having a body where each representative represents more people and has longer terms is important, we can have that while still having it be reasonably proportional. The fundamental thing that sets the Senate apart is that it's meant to represent the states themselves, not the people. Thus each state is equally represented, and until the early 20th century they were not elected by the people. That no longer serves a purpose and that's what I'd like to see changed.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#520

Post by MichaelZuo »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #501
MichaelZuo wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t think your opinion can outweigh other’s here… how does replying even once, without an attached or linked argument, make sense?

It wouldn't male sense, but an opinion in this case is the argument, no? You can disagree with an opinion and also think your own isn't necessarily superior. In much of internet discourse, your goal isn't even to convince the person to reply to, it's to give more viewpoints to the silent majority who lurk and never comment. Whether they think an opinion is better or worse is up to them.

This really doesn’t make sense.

I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X”

By your logic if I replied with that to every comment chain in every HN post adjusting X to each topic… then I would become the most productive HN user of all time.

Post reply on HN