"Schumer has several reluctant members within his own caucus and will have to scrounge up at least 10 Republican votes for the legislation during an already chaotic Senate calendar filled with Biden administration priorities on infrastructure, police accountability and education. Schumer would also need to corner President Joe Biden — who has supported decriminalizing marijuana but not legalizing it — to sign the bill.... The discussion draft of the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act includes provisions that cater to both 'states rights' Republicans and progressive Democrats. While the proposal seeks to remove all federal penalties on weed, it would allow states to prohibit even the possession of cannabis — along with production and distribution — a nod to states’ rights.... Federal weed legalization is dicey at best, especially given the more pressing concerns of infrastructure spending and pandemic recovery."
It's a nice distraction from "the more pressing concerns of infrastructure spending and pandemic recovery." Schumer is cuing up a distinct accomplishment that can be grabbed if they choose.
I'd like to see this pass if only to restore order. It's chaotic for various states to be operating as if marijuana is legal when it is outlawed at the federal level.
पोस्ट्स
५ टिप्पण्या:
steven writes:
"Why all the interest by the Dems in legalizing weed? Were they not a big force behind the demonization of tobacco? And what about the states? They all got billions from the tobacco companies for all the damage supposedly done by tobacco to the health of their citizens. Cancer, emphysema, etc. Smoking weed causes cancer too doesn't it? Will weed growers be sued some time in the future for the health problems they will cause? Just wondering"
George writes:
An emerging story is the horrifying side-effects of high-potency legal dope, because dope is what it is, not medical-sounding 'cannabis.'
Colorado is seeing bizarre psychoses and other psychatric problems, especially among children:
"The condition — officially called "cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome" but now known to health care workers as "scromiting," a mashup of "screaming" and "vomiting" — has popped up with increasing frequency at hospitals in Colorado, doctors say. The ER at Parkview Medical Center in Pueblo saw only five scromiting cases in 2009. By 2018, the number had risen to more than 120, according to data compiled by Dr. Brad Roberts, an emergency room physician at the hospital."
"Growing evidence shows high-potency THC products are more likely to bring on or worsen mental health issues in young people. The state’s own reporting says so, and a broader study of 204,000 people ages 10-24 released in January in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s pediatrics publication found elevated risk of self-harm among young people who misused cannabis.
“We found SUBSTANTIAL evidence that THC intoxication can cause acute psychotic symptoms, which are worse with higher doses,” the 2020 report from Colorado’s health department said."
BothSidesNow writes:
"Your last sentence noting that it is chaotic for marijuana to be legal in various states but illegal at the federal level puts you in good company, notably Justice Thomas. See his statement disagreeing with the denial of cert on a challenge to IRS regulations re: marijuana. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-645_9p6b.pdf
Thomas references an earlier unsuccessful challenge to Congressional power to outlaw the growing of marijuana within a state for consumption within that state. A divided Court denied the challenge, based on a "watertight national prohibition." Well, that national prohibition has since then sprung a few leaks, so Thomas makes the common sense observation that perhaps it is time to revisit Congressional authority. He says:
"If the Government is now content to allow States to act “as laboratories” “‘and try novel social and economic experiments,’” Raich, 545 U. S., at 42 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), then it might no longer have authority to intrude on “[t]he States’ core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.” Ibid. A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government’s piecemeal approach.
"So it is now you and Justice Thomas!"
Lucien writes:
"One comes to expect hypocrisy from political leaders, yet I found Obama’s position on marijuana legalization particularly reprehensible. He was a regular consumer of the stuff in his younger days, and smart enough to realize that a marijuana arrest and conviction could have strangled his political career in its crib. Yet he was perfectly willing to consign future generations of Barrack Obamas to that fate if they were unlucky enough to be caught and prosecuted by our nation's drug warriors."
Iain writes:
"I incline to agree with you that federal legalisation or decriminalisation would to some degree restore order, eliminating at least one area where states attempt to create a "sanctuary" from federal law.
"But my inner cynic, who dwells very close to my outer cynic, sees this as a mere bid to satisfy four long-standing Democratic Party priorities: 1) raising taxes, because this will have tax provisions; 2) increasing spending faster than new taxes can fund it, because this comes larded with special programs for favoured groups, mostly criminals, who have been "hurt" by existing statutes; 3a) making more Dem voters by catering to weed users, even if they are mostly Dems already, and 3b) making more Dem voters by expunging convictions, either allowing felons to vote or making criminals even more loyal to the Democrats.
"Unsurprisingly with Chuck Schumer involved, this is nothing more than a cynical ploy to meet bigger picture priorities under the guise of "fairness.""
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा