[flagged]
That’s not limited to GOP.
No, but only with the GOP can you be certain that those things will happen.
Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
561–570 of 583 posts
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fundamental…
I know that's what he typed, I'm asking what he meant. The Senate does not represent 350 million people. It has never represented people. It was never meant to represent people. Of course it's a ridiculous way of representing people, in the same way that a hammer is a ridiculous tool for heating something up. It's a completely nonsensical statement.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#563Where'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…
I've been harping on this for years. My support for democratic, rational governance is non-partisan - if a majority of voters support the republican, that's their prerogative
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nothing new. It's fundamentally undemocratic and the reasons for having it are long gone. I don't care who controls it, it should go or at the very least be dramatically reformed.
There is the concept of illiberal democracy. The Senate, according to most political scientists who study this, is an important part of cutting that off that because bicameralism along with independent courts etc are good. It's mostly populism rising and not realizing how dangerous it would be to have another check on power removed. Reform the system, don't just turn to blind populism.
There are plenty of little-r republican institutions that can put a check on populism without blatant disproportionate representation.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nothing new. It's fundamentally undemocratic and the reasons for having it are long gone. I don't care who controls it, it should go or at the very least be dramatically reformed.
> It's fundamentally undemocratic and the reasons for having it are long gone Undemocratic is insufficient for removing a governing body per se . (Courts are technically undemocratic. That doesn't make them bad.) Compared with the House, the Senate has behaved as designed--a far more mature body that actually deliberates from time to time.
> Compared with the House, the Senate has behaved as designed--a far more mature body that actually deliberates from time to time.
Do you earnestly think this is a function of the rural-urban skew? In my view it is almost certainly due to the differences in number of people being represented by a senator and possibly term limit differences.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
Party lines... Senate: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396 House: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/h165 There's always been a plan to replace it with the only economically viable plan that can reduce the cost of healthcare. The same plan Dr. Ben Carson has been talking about for years. It's the only solution proposed by anyone from either party that would work.
Yes. Along party lines. Why do you think every Republican voted against the conservative think-tank produced healthcare bill? I certainly have my theory... Yes. Carson introduced that "plan" in 2015, right? Why do you reckon Republicans have not pushed it forward once in over the past 10 years despite twice controlling all parts of the federal government? Because it's D.O.A. flawed. It does what basically every other…
Controlling is not the same as filibuster proof majority (as we just saw with the shutdown), which is what it would take to do this.
Why did every Republican vote against it? Because it was terrible legislation that nobody even got to read before voting on it. As Pelosi famously said, "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
And the reason that you didn't get single payer is because you didn't have support for single payer among Democrats, who did hold a filibuster proof majority.
This idea that the ACA, Obama's signature legislation is some how a conservative push is not based in reality. It's a talking point to give it the appearance of bipartisan legislation, which it is not.
The Heritage Foundation influences were from a 1989 proposal that talked about the an individual mandate and health insurance exchanges. The Heritage Foundation itself has gone as far as to totally disavow any association to the ACA.
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/dont-...
The ACA disaster is 100% on the party that forced it in along party lines, without even reading it first.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they could agree to pass two bills. This would require the two "sides" to trust each other, but it could (ideally would) also function to build trust, which would be a good thing.
Assuming there was enough trust to "guarantee" that one bill would pass right after the other, then what's the point of having the single subject rule in the first place? Sounds like you still have riders but with extra steps (and an opportunity to betray trust).
Because it becomes harder to "hide" things - like, the provisions being bargained for, or politicians' actual convictions about particular measures. There are items which now get passed in omnibus bills, bargained for behind closed doors by leadership, which couldn't (whip votes as ye may) be passed in up-or-down votes on their own merits. Those are, in my opinion, corrupt bargains, and shouldn't happen. I like legislative horse-trading - it's an important part of the democratic process - but I'd like it to be open and above board.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience it is also the other things in there which helps with the pain relief. Doctors in my country talk about the entourage effect and mixing strains as they reckon it's not just the THC which is helping. I can imagine people in the future looking at us like idiots as they use cannabinoids in the same way we use paracetamol. From personal experience suffering from chronic pain cannabis is absolutely transf…
> From personal experience suffering from chronic pain cannabis is absolutely transformative. Like all drugs, it’s sad it doesn’t work this way for everyone. I had to transition from cannabis to opiates and lyrica. I wish this was not the case. They suspect it’s due to the source of the pain (spinal cord injury) and the cannabis is “exciting” my nerves in the wrong way, as it actually increases my pain; or at least m…
Selling it as a pain reliever I can't buy into personally based off my anecdotal experience. I've had chronic pericarditis for more than a decade now and THC amplifies mine as well, as I tend to focus more on the pain. I think it's a very subjective thing, depending on many factors; strain, type of pain, person, etc.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My (perhaps incorrect) understanding is that the majority of the sales are happening in the 26 states without recreational marijuana, however, and that many consumers in the recreational states are still choosing to go with the dispensary product vs. head shop/liquor store/etc. I don't know if that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm not sure what you mean WRT "hemp" being more "regulated" than the b…
> I'm not sure what you mean WRT "hemp" being more "regulated" than the black market. Just basic laws around farming. For example, lead arsenate is banned in the US, and I trust the hemp farmers to not be using it as much as I trust any similar operation, but someone illegally growing stuff? They're already breaking the law. And who knows where it was grown to begin with? And in general, there are companies behind al…
Fair enough.
Legal recourse is definitely an upside of not dealing with a black market. I agree.
I'm not familiar with the laws around hemp growing and/or the Federal loophole, but I hope you're right about at least minimal regulation (and legal recourse for) of non-consumable products, especially if they're being consumed (can you sue the makers of clothing or rope if you get sick eating or smoking their products?).
As I said, hopefully we'll eventually get to a sane policy regarding cannabis.
Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame everybody who is responsible, please.
[flagged]
Please don't post snarky comments on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're aiming for something better here.