U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by FrenchTouch42 » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

handmodel wrote: post #25

jolux wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is extremely pro-legalization (and pro-decriminalization of all drugs) I still think this is perfectly reasonable. We know rough bounds on the safety of cannabis/THC (probably safer than tobacco and alcohol, probably not a good idea if you have a family history of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, or if you’re very young) but we don’t really know in depth what the long-term effects are like, for differ…

Yeah I don't really see any error in the logic of making it safe but also wanting studies on it. Studies on it were very hard to do for years because it was a controlled substance. I do enjoy edibles (probably do them once a month) and in my case I am 100% sure it has changed my memory somewhat. I'm ok with that risk because I do enjoy it but I would like to know more about people who have been doing this for decades…

"changed my memory" what do you mean by this?

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

#62

Post by monocasa » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

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…

The Republicans literally turn their backs on Republican policy positions once the Democrats are for it. The ACA started life in 1994 as Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's HEART Act, including the individual mandate. It then became the crown jewel of Mitt Romney's healthcare reform in MA, with it planned for being pushed as a federal rollout before Obama beat him to the punch and took the wind out of his sails wrt potential election promises.

I personally think the ACA is an awful bill, but I'm pretty alone among Democrats with that opinion.

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

#63

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

cronix wrote: post #42

jimbob45 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weed is still somewhat dangerous to smoke because of lung cancer and we regulate cigarettes so there's some precedent here. On the other hand, there are methods with which to use weed that confer 0% risk of lung cancer and my anecdotal evidence suggests more and more people are using those methods.

Vaporizing, or using edibles, or other concentrates, eliminates that as you aren't burning/combusting anything, which is where most of those harms come from. There are plenty of ways to ingest now without actually smoking it. You can even get chocolates and gummy bears in legal places.

At the weed shop I've gone to a couple times, the people there said over half their customers are buying edibles. Most people don't want to inhale smoke, not just because of the health concerns, but because of the lingering smell.

I smoked it once, and I hated the taste. It left a lingering taste in the back of my throat.

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

#64

Post by Cipater » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

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…

Did you notice that you deny that Republicans are obstructionist but don't extend the same good faith to Democrats?

Going so far as to hypothesize bad faith in the proposing of a bill like this to make the Republicans look bad.

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

#65

Post by killion » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

I'm surprised this is just hitting HN now since it happened last month.

But I look forward to being able to use credit cards with services like Sava. The last time I used a delivery service they could take cash or sketchy apps which link to your debit card.

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

#66

Post by UI_at_80x24 » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #11

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…

In general, inhaling chemical compounds is more dangerous than ingesting them (e.g., vitamin E acetate). Also, the dose makes the poison, and don't we try to wash off most of what we spray on crops?

>Also, the dose makes the poison, and don't we try to wash off most of what we spray on crops?

You absolutely SHOULD wash everything before you put it in your body, but there are a lot of chemicals that plants can/do absorb that can't be washed off.

Example: RoundUp

RoundUp sprayed onto a field will cause the plants to dry out. Intended purpose: Spray this on the weeds to kill them. Unintended usage: Is your wheat/corn/soybeans still wet because it's raining during harvest? Douse the field in Roundup, and the crop will dry out while still covered in water.

You end up ingesting it, because it's INSIDE the corn/wheat/soybeans. BUT it doesn't end there, think about the thousands of products that the corn/soybeans/wheat gets processed into.

You can't wash a loaf of bread.

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

#67

Post by epicureanideal » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

Cipater wrote: post #64

epicureanideal wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did you notice that you deny that Republicans are obstructionist but don't extend the same good faith to Democrats? Going so far as to hypothesize bad faith in the proposing of a bill like this to make the Republicans look bad.

I'm just saying what I'm observing. Maybe my observation is incorrect, but that's how it seems to me at the moment.

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

#68

Post by monocasa » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

cronix wrote: post #56

pm90 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 egre…

It's essential because people aren't going to stop doing recreational drugs when you tell them they need to stay in their houses. You just push them to using the informal economy which won't comply with spread prevention guidelines.

They tried to declare dispensaries and liquor stores non-essential in CO, and the run on stores caused a couple super spreader events within hours before they reversed their decision. A brewery near by made some awesome glasses that say "Denver Prohibition 3/23/2020 3PM - 3/23/2020 5PM Never Forget".

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

#69

Post by NoSorryCannot » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #43

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say leave the number-choosing to the states. Regulate medical marijuana like any other non-scheduled drug and leave cultural decisions concerning recreational use to the states, where it belongs. Use federal funding stipulations as leverage when needed.

Pick a number and it is still arbitrary, doesn't matter who does it ;)

I didn't mean to imply that it was any less arbitrary (the arbitrariness of the numbers is disputed in other threads), only that I view the feds setting that number as overstepping.

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

#70

Post by duskwuff » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

tofuahdude wrote: post #16

Definitely appreciate that this seems to be heading in the right direction. > limited retail sales transactions at the state level to 10 ounces of cannabis at a time What's the intent of a rule like that? Prevent one 21 year old from buying a pound for his under-21 friends? I feel like alcohol has proven that this is pretty futile. Is there some other point?

Ten ounces is a lot of marijuana. For reference, one ounce typically costs $200-300, and is enough to roll roughly 50 joints. If you were buying for friends, even one or two ounces would be more than enough.

If you're buying more than ten ounces of marijuana at a time, you're buying it for resale. Even a heavy user would have a hard time justifying that large of a purchase.