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

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 different doses, different age groups, different comorbidities, etc. The government more or less forbid researching this subject for a long time, and the environment is still relatively hostile to it. The research is young.

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?

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.

This is a common tactic to simply delay an unwanted bill without providing a substantive reason why. Nothing further should be read into it.

I think legalization would also provide a lot of safety. Not only because there is stuff that shouldn't be in there, today's weed isn't comparable to that of the 60s and I don't think that is good.

It has been cultivated for yielding extreme levels of THC. It isn't just some weed anymore that induces a small high, it is extremely psychoactive an can easily cause psychosis. Problem is you cannot really determine how much THC you consumed. Your are either stoned or stoned, so high dosages aren't really needed anyway.

I think with legalization you could limit these values to more healthy values again.

Sure, but you need to ask for at least some things that you will likely not get. That give you some wiggle room while negotiating. If you start with compromise position you will get very little of what you want and mostly what the other party prefers.

I think putting the opposition party on the record on this issue is part of the strategy because it is seen as broadly popular.

The banks are chomping at the bit to get in on this revenue and so we can hope their influence with the right is enough to move them. The expunging of crimes is probably going to be the nonstarter that kills it. The 'party of law and order' doesn't like the idea of people 'disrespecting the law' and often react strongly to any suggestion that someone who knowingly broke the law, when it was the law, being excused for that post behavior. These are the same people that insist you refer to judges as 'your honor' and are happy to throw you in jail for 'disrespecting' the judge, which in real life translates to don't you dare talk back or disagree even when they are being unreasonable or even downright hostile themselves. As distasteful as it is, I think we would be better served to remove that and focus on locking down the major win of not ruining anymore lives moving forward.

Either way, the tide is clearly turning with so many states refusing to comply with the federal ban, and the federal government refusing to punish those states for it, that it is clear it will happen eventually.

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. Unfortunately, they may not want to phrase it the right way and prefer to try to push it through with unfavorable wording just to say the other side is obstructionist.

The Senate just passed a bill calling for a trillion dollars worth of spending. It's not like nothing can pass; you just need buy in from 60 Senators. The right legalization bill could do that but it might not have have everything. I'd be happy with removing marijuana from schedule 1, eliminating the penalties for possession and reducing those for selling.

While we're at it, why is LSD in the same tier as heroin? It's far safer than that, or even cocaine, and it has therapeutic uses.

It's because of a broken feedback mechanism. Officially, it has no therapeutic uses, which means medical research is not sanctioned. Without medical research you can't discover therapeutic uses. And when someone does do the research, that research is by definition unsanctioned, so it's not officially recognized. Catch-22.

The same reasoning means the original classification of "high abuse potential" is difficult to overturn as well.

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 this step would be quite impactful.

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....

It's never too late to post some random US politics to HackerNews.

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?

I always assumed those were dividing lines that let rando citizens do their thing without trouble ... and a way to identify potental illegal traffickers.

Despite being legal, illegal pot I believe is still cheaper / in demand in places.

My guess would be that the intent is to put a roadblock in the way of anyone trying to make an illegal secondary market.

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.

Most observers doubt it will make it that far. It needs unanimity among Democrats in the Senate, which it's unlikely to get.

This is more about nudging the Overton window, declaring that it's something they will consider seriously. They want people to see what such a bill could look like, and what would be in it, to see how they react.

It's possible that the Democrats will pick up a few Senate seats in 2022, making passage more feasible. If so, Biden's veto becomes relevant, but it's also subject to internal party negotiations. They could provide various ways to mitigate his concerns, or simply make clear that it would greatly improve the party's standing.

That's a problem for a couple of years from now, when things will be different. They're just laying the groundwork.

To me it immediately connotes a recreational use, which is a useful distinction from purely medical (or pseudo-medical) applications.

So the word seems appropriate even if part of the familiar venacular.

This would enable that. Right now, in states that have legalized, retailers and users are still in contravention of federal law.

12 states have completely legalized recreational cannabis use (like alcohol - 21yrs and over), and 36 for medical use, so they have been.

That's what this does:

> States will control the possession, production, or distribution of cannabis, the draft says, while shipping marijuana into states that have not legalized it will be prohibited.

As opposed to the status quo where in principle the federal government could decide to prosecute... shall we say "marijuana market participants"? in states where it is legal.

Marijuana shops can’t access banking, customers and businesses are still in theory breaking federal laws

Just a guess, but I'd assume this is a step in that direction?

One somewhat related item -- the federal prohibition of alcohol (Amendment 18) and its repeal (Amendment 21) -- stems from the commerce clause, which enumerates the powers held by the Federal legislative branch: including the regulation of intrastate and interstate commerce. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, so grains of salt.

Fun fact: though the 21st amendment came into being in 1933, Mississippi was one of the last states to repeal a state-wide dry law in 1966. [0]

[0] https://www.mdah.ms.gov/timeline/zone/1966/

At some point you pick a number, it will always seem somewhat arbitrary.

The brain is developing until around 25, so if anything, the age should be higher if the intent is to prevent unsafe use.

The brain is still developing at that age and marijuana has well documented effects on brain development.

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.