US House passes federal cannabis decriminalisation bill
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I realize it's more complicated than giving voters what they want. The US has flexed its policy muscles for the drug war for decades, and fully legalizing now would violate a number of important treaties with other countries. However, decriminalizing should be a no-brainer.
I'd be fascinated to know which countries. Obviously Mexico and Canada couldn't care less. Which other ones haven't already moved on?
Most of the countries in the world (some places still make posession of small quantities of cannabis a potentially-capital offense); the treaties involved are global drug-control treaties.
In your own echo chamber, that may be true, but I hope you understand, there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization. They may not be as vocal about it online, but their votes count just as much as yours.
The votes of people in favor of the status quo always count more than the votes to change, by a factor of perhaps 3 (since they need to be only 26% in order to be the majority-of-the-majority). More, really, since they need to control only one of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
That's not to say people who oppose the legislation's vote doesn't matter, but it's overturned by the majority that favor it.
By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, which nationwide, has just 59% support.
Also important to note that public support is much lower in some states, and as a federal republic, those individual states have (and should continue to have) the power to decide for the citizens who live there.
Additionally, that number will almost certainly be higher in coming years. The shift we have seen in recent decades seems very robust.
I would argue this is due to the American public realizing that many of the arguments in favor of prohibition were exaggerated or downright false.
Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)
100% agree.
After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization?
I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.
For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still detrimental to society.
[1] https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_...
[0] https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebr...
While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.
"violent crime increased 20% from 2012 to 2017"
If you graph the data presented in table 46, the increasing trend – specifically in violent crime since 2012 – becomes very clear.
I'm also not seeing any significant increase in insurance rates after my state ended prohibition, and the traffic fatalities and collisions haven't been significantly impacted.
What explanation do you propose for why cannabis legalization would lead to an increase in violent crime?
Anecdotally, the people I know who use marijuana drive high regularly and don’t think that doing so is dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That party has the overwhelming favor of its constituency. They lost the top spot, but largely held their own in legislative elections. They may have a large contingent of people who would be in favor of decriminalization, but they don't seem to mind that their party obstructs it. Meantime, they have a constituency who is bitterly opposed to legalization, so they get to rule the day.
It's a discussion that needs to be held within that party. They won't listen to anybody from outside. They've made their bargain about a slate of issues they care about and issues they're willing to sacrifice.
Having watched legalization play out here in Colorado (quite successfully by any metric), I think what greased the wheels of viability was simple profit motive, for better or worse. The "anti" lobbyists guarding their turf were balanced by "pro" lobbyists who perceived a growth market and investment opportunity; and both citizens and representatives were assuaged by the prospect of significant tax revenue for schools. Paradoxically, it may be that full federal legalization (with a revenue-positive regulatory framework) is more politically viable than decriminalization, even if the latter objectively saves taxpayers money.
There is a single person blocking this vote. I'd say it's rather unfair to characterize legislators in general as being out of touch when 228 members of Congress voted in favor of the bill. If fact, if you include both chambers of Congress, more legislators likely support this bill than don't.
If you want to blame more than one person, blame the Senators that elected the current Senate majority leader.
I thought it went without saying which specific party in the legislative branch is out of touch with the voters, but yes, this is a specific party who is on the wrong side of history, as usual.
Passing this bill in the house now, when the control of the Senate hangs on an upcoming election, was a brilliant move.
Why do you believe that history takes sides?
As I understand it, the US Congress has the power to withdraw from any treaty with legislation without restriction[0], by passing an Act that repeals the effect of the treaty. "Parliament | Congress cannot bind its future self" is a well-settled Common Law principle.
Treaties receive no special status. While they may be negotiated and recommended by the President, and come into effect upon supermajority consent of the Senate, treaties are nevertheless held to be legislative in nature. Since Congress cannot bind its future self, it can repeal any treaty at any time with the usual mechanisms.
Meaning: an Act that fully legalised marijuana could include clauses repealing the legal status of treaties.
Of course, I am not a lawyer.
As far as Marijuana goes, those treaties are on a path to being a dead letter, anyway. Canada and Uruguay, Mexico almost certainly by the end of the year...
And, in fact, the US, given its federal nonenforcement policy (which, is, in part, statutorily mandated in federal law) in states that have legalized, is already in open and flagrant violation of them, anyhow, so that's not a change with legalization.
> “This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. It stops the federal government from interfering with what states have decided to do”
In all seriousness, isn’t the Republican platform weaker central government?
Why the exception?
The GOP policy website this election was literally copy pasted from 2016 - it infamously contained references to how they need to change things the incumbent president did.
I would love a Neoliberal Democratic party.
Democrats did.
It's easy to say "both sides" but the facts don't match that platitude.
In their own words they define themselves by their opposition to democrats.
[1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_202...
Except, it isn't.
in Obama's memoir, he recalls he and Biden trying to explain the policy merits of a bill to Mitch McConnell, who responds "You must be under the mistaken impression that I care”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonmladd/status/13276522875195965...
In the US both parties want a stronger central government, just with different priorities.
That would be a proper minarchist position.
“Conservative” is more about the aims of government than its size, though in an attempt to build a coalition with libertarians, American conservatives selectively use minarchist language when justifying their opposition to things that they really oppose for purpose reasons rather than government size reasons.
We are taught that in school, but their policy doesn't line up with that.
There is a strong debate to be made Biden is more fiscally right leaning than Trump. Where Trump was big into economic intervention (higher taxes through tariffs and SALT Deduction removal, higher deficit, new government spending projects, tax credits, free money, and restricting commerce on bump stocks).
Despite having the word “conservatism” in it, fiscal conservatism isn't a Right position in that more of it makes you more right. It's basically a position whose apex is in center-right neoliberal corporate capitalism; go farther left or right and it becomes less of a priority.
Biden is definitely closer to the center-right than Trump, but he's not more right-leaning.
It seems to be more about small tax breaks, and making life as difficult as possible for people who are not married and straight. Actually helping people might be construed as socialism.
The modern gun totting intolerant Christ is a lot different from the compassionate one who taught about "Loving your neighbor" and "Forgiveness" we learned about in bible school...
I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.
> I mean, in the year 2020, sure, democrats want legal weed but I am talking about the history of the drug war in America. Democrats have never been leaders.
And it's not all the democrats that support legalization. I bet you the democrats would not be able to pass this in the senate even if they had a majority. I would put a lot of money on this wager.
You can call things "horseshit" all you want, doesn't move the discussion forward.
In all seriousness, no.
Though weaker central government is something they trot out tomjustify opposition to functions they don't like government doing, while cheerfully increasing central government power when the central government is doing things that they approve of, like regulating substances, for instance.
The general impression I get is that a majority of Republicans would support federal decriminalization of cannabis. Most of those support legalization as a specific goal, while others would support through their view of federalism.
A supermajority of US citizens support legalization at this point - only around 1/3 poll as be opposed as of last year, and that number is consistently falling over time.
It's honestly not a partisan issue at this point - it's a "politician" issue.
It used to be that politicians could pander a little to the base during a primary and then "run to the centre" in the general. Those days are gone, because "being primaried" is a real and persistent risk.
The practical upshot is that the system is structured to favour fringe voices rather than the median voter.
Its insane to me as well, but the traditional Republican base likes to see "dirty criminals" go away and support police efforts to do so, cannabis is still associated with them in their minds.
Personally I think its changing amongst the voting base but theres still a strong cultural momentum around demonizing these drugs, especially amongst the Evangelical White Southerners that make up the core of their voting base.
Edit: There's a cynical side to this as well - Neither party wants to "give" the party anything without getting something in return. Republicans allowing cannabis reform does nothing for them politically but makes the Democrats look good. Why would they allow that to happen without getting something back?
I've given up trying to find coherent values in Republican actions. There are many conservative views that have merit, but they're not reflected in Republican policies.
And they're like that because most people (voters in particular) are like that. Everyone wants stronger government control and regulation over the things they personally dislike, and less control over the things they do like, and they vote for the party that matches those preferences.
Most Republican voters like and dislike the same things, while Democratic voters tend to have much larger variability (outside a core set of things.) It's why the GOP has an easier time hanging on to power than the Democrats do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...
And similarly, the alcohol and tobacco industries. It's really never about morality.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/one-s...
Follow the money. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of private prisons, generally in red states.
Absinthe makes you crazy and criminal, provokes epilepsy and tuberculosis, and has killed thousands of French people. It makes a ferocious beast of man, a martyr of woman, and a degenerate of the infant, it disorganizes and ruins the family and menaces the future of the country.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
To block an conviction of an impeached president or a constitutional amendment, only 34 senators (17 states) are needed. As of 2018, that was as little as 7.32% of the US population.
If you care to do the math yourself, this is my source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...
And some python to help once you have lines to summarize: sum(map(float, open('foo').readlines()))
Unless the Zetas have recently started moving into Wyoming, too, I'm guessing they're also the ones being least harmed by externalities from the war on drugs.
Can you tell me why it makes sense for so few people to dominate the wills of so many?
When the United States was formed and the compromise for 2 Senators per state and house representatives by population was agreed to, the largest state population was 11x the smallest state population. Today, California is 70x Wyoming. This has the effect that Senators from smaller states have way more power in today's world than they did in the 1800s. The ratios are unbalanced and need to be adjusted just like we adjust the apportionment of house representatives via the census every 10 years.
That was the original thinking, but the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but one where each member has a longer term and a hugely outsized influence compared to the number of people they represent.
It's because the people who want it will still vote for you if you keep it criminalized. But a significant number of the ones who want it to stay criminalized will totally write you off if you decriminalize it.
In the US, how motivated people are is usually even more important than how many of them there are. Combine that fact with the electoral college and gerrymandering, and there is a constant threat of minority rule.
EDIT: Private prisons. Can't believe I forgot about that. Everyone else who replied has got the main reason nailed.
I imagine Democrats wouldn't do this if they had control of the government.
Seems like lip service to their bases.
Why not? It's already decriminalized in virtually the entire country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...
35 states have legalized it for medical use, and 15 have legalized it recreationally. From the map, it looks like Idaho stands alone on it being completely illegal and criminalized.
You are going to be getting angry phone calls. Better to get those angry phone calls in exchange for a spending bill that goes to your donors/constituents.
Elections have razor thin margins. What benefit does the politician get?
That's the point, though. It's not a big policy change - the map demonstrates that. Decriminalization is already the de facto situation in nearly the entire country.
Federal law with regards to marijuana is completely and openly ignored in much of the country. Dispensaries operate with relative impunity.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...
Centrist Democrats have been trying to get this moderate base for a while, and leftist Democrats are obviously gonna support legalization, so this seems like the rare case where they actually get to be aligned on something broadly and would push it if they were in power.
Awesome! What's the problem?
The Senate is a deeply broken political institution. Every single Republican, by supporting Mitch McConnell as majority leader, is complicit in its destruction.
Obamacare was passed with 60 votes, no republicans supported it, and that was the best we could do. Republicans have never had that kind of margin in the Senate and look what they are able to accomplish.
At some point you just have to call democrats out for what they are, controlled opposition.
There is even have video evidence of illegally adding and counting votes... but oh no! Can't discuss how to improve that process...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKkheU5cy2E
Frankly, while I agree with the legislation, but the entire country is angry (one way or another). We should probably try to address the real issues.
I don't care about COVID relief. If anything passes it will be a scam and no money for the taxpayers who fund it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/01/ppp-sba-d...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
They are literally and blatantly robbing our country at this point, but the political institutions are too dysfunctional to do anything about it.
One person shouldn't be able to unilaterally decide what will and won't be voted on, and shouldn't be able to tell half of the senate how they'll be voting if they want access to re-election funds.
I don't know what the solution is, or who could implement one. But it's really hard to look at the last decade or two and claim that the senate is working as intended.
No it's not.
> It’s a democracy of the states.
The “demo-” in “democracy” means something, and it's not “the states”.
If you mean “its a majoritarian body of which the constituents are States”, that's partly true (although in some ways the Senate is nonmajoritarian), but that is, by definition, not a “democracy”.
My perception of what the OP was going for was a complain that the Senate is, in some way and not representing anything - just arbitrary wills.
It is representing something, though. It's the second half of congress and it's meant to represent the will of the states as a whole.
Calling it a "majoritarian body of which the constituents are states", while technically correct, is full of sufficiently advanced language as to lose meaning in regular conversation.
Instead, I explained how it is equal representation, of sorts - the things that are being represented are the states, so it is fair, of sorts.
It's easier for a person who doesn't want to read a set of scholarly words to think "oh, so it's a democracy, except all the states are people" than it is to break down each word - at least, I think it is, which is why I worded it that way.
Also in their statement, I assumed, was an assumption that it's unfair and therefore the Senate is worthless and should be abolished because it ignores everyone's will - even when working properly - so, I tried to compact that in there, as well, by trying to bring implications that the United States of America is not just a collective of people, but it's also a collective of states and each of them desires representation in our democracy.
I guess, thank you for the etymology lesson, but it missed my whole point.
Equal representation of things that aren't the individual citizens is not democracy, and is in fact opposed to democracy; and "fair, of sorts" is orthogonal to democracy.
Yes, democracy is a more convenient term and concept than many of those that might be accurately applied to the Senate, but its not even remotely accurate when applied to the Senate, which is deliberately not merely non-democratic, but actively anti-democratic.
If you want to argue that the design of the Senate is useful or good or fair in some way, go ahead and do that, but don't expect to use "democracy" for that purpose without argument just because its a warm fuzzy word that is more convenient than any word with equally positive general reception that accurately applies to the Senate.
No, he can't, because he can be replaced if the majority caucus is unhappy with him. He hasn't been because he enacts their will.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=powell+stimulus+too+much
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/us/politics/georgia-repub...
They don't need to be better to get their way. The US system gives rural areas disproportionate political power. Rural areas are less diverse, older, more religious, less educated and more conservative than the cities.
The disproportionate influence was built in on purpose when the US was formed. Sparsely-populated states wouldn't agree to a union if populous New York was going to dominate all policy. There have always been arguments about the pros and cons.
IIUC it could indirectly reduce some people’s freedom to live, because marijuana can impair driving but is harder to diagnose as the cause for accidents than alcohol — because tests only show whether it has been taken in the last few weeks, not whether the subject is intoxicated at the moment of the test. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
In fact, all the things listed above make someone a far more dangerous driver than marijuana use. Yet working extra long hours and sleep deprivation in the name of "productivity" is celebrated.
I can think of a million other things to ban, starting with mandatory breathalyzers on all cars that disable the engine upon detection of alcohol, that would yield a bigger benefit in exchange for the loss of freedom.
But I’m also not about banning every single thing that increases morbidity/mortality risks.
Why don't we just put automated red light cameras and speed cameras everywhere? Won't that maximize my freedom to on safe roads?
Would you support such a measure?
I feel this line is what'll cause the bill to not pass in the Senate.
I don't see why the removal of cannabis from the scheduled drugs list needs to be coupled with criminal record expungement. Do one. Then move to do the next.
Is this how things are usually done?
Yes, you pack the politically tenuous stuff in with the widely supported stuff so you put the opposing side in an optically bad position if they reject it.
The headlines will be “Senate rejects marijuana decriminalization bill supported by majority of population” rather than “Senate rejects criminal record expungement”.
Politics are fucked in this country.
The congress is more than capable of doing multiple things at once.
COVID-19 is still a dedicated category on Google News, and other news sites. Nobody is ignoring it.
Trying this after January at least might've made more sense.
It's frustrating we see full House votes on pointless partisan efforts when there are issues like infrastructure that both parties could and should agree on and progress in.
It may be partisan in terms of federal politics, but this is absolutely not a partisan issue to a huge majority of Americans.
The House passed a big infrastructure bill in July. They've also already passed several other bipartisan bills.
These mostly just die in the Senate because McConnell does not even allow them to come to a vote. His Senate is mostly focused on confirming judges.
There are literally hundreds of bills that have passed the House that are completely stalled in the Senate.
And there is no progress to be made from the House when they are not the road block. Reconsider what you are saying.