9 ms·

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

104 points by norov 5y ago

codq 5y ago
Seems strange to me that a purportedly high-integrity journalistic organization would refer to it as ‘weed’ in the headline. Is ‘cannabis’ not click-baity enough for Reuters?
- athenot 5y ago
  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.
  - galangalalgol 5y ago
    that makes sense. What is pseudo-medical? Drugs to alter mood can be prescribed, but if they aren't is it recreational or self medication? If boredom is causing distress, could the drugs taken to ease it be considered medical? That may be a really bad idea for robust mental health, but sadly that is sometimes true for the prescribed drugs as well.
frankbreetz 5y ago
>>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 can choose to not ingest weed, I have to eat and it is quite difficult to find disclosures about chemicals sprayed on the food available, and many of these chemical have been researched far less then weed.
- jolux 5y ago
  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.
  - handmodel 5y ago
    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.
    - FrenchTouch42 5y ago
      "changed my memory" what do you mean by this?
      - handmodel 5y ago
        I have a weaker memory than I used to - and definitely feel extra hazy for the 4-5 days immediately after use. I think its possible some of it is just me getting older? But there are plenty of studies out there which suggest some link here so it wouldn't surprise me.
  - villasv 5y ago
    > The research is young. GP didn't say research on weed wasn't needed, the point is obvious double standards and that agtech should be - but isn't - this thorough (or more, actually, but that's beside the point). So what is notable here is that this call for research doesn't come from being reasonable, it comes from partiality with plausible deniability.
DaveExeter 5y ago
>The draft set the minimum age required to buy cannabis at 21 21? Haven't we as a society progressed past this pernicious discrimination!
- tyre 5y ago
  The brain is still developing at that age and marijuana has well documented effects on brain development.
- duxup 5y ago
  At some point you pick a number, it will always seem somewhat arbitrary.
  - galangalalgol 5y ago
    How about the same number that lets you vote, and decide where you live, or get drafted, and get married without parental consent, and get medical care without parental consent?
    - anoonmoose 5y ago
      we should be increasing some of those numbers to 21 too
    - yupper32 5y ago
      Voting, moving out, getting medical care, and marriage generally don't negatively impact your body and brain. Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said. (And getting drafted... well that should just go away all together).
      - easton 5y ago
        Cigarettes are 21 in the US as of three years or so ago.
Bhilai 5y ago
> 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.
- petschge 5y ago
  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.
- comrh 5y ago
  I think putting the opposition party on the record on this issue is part of the strategy because it is seen as broadly popular.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- the_lonely_road 5y ago
  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.
neither_color 5y ago
I'm not a smoker but Im glad this is finally happening. It's tragic how many people had their records ruined by minor possessions charges and I hope they're made whole. I think a non-trivial portion of any new legal sales should go to anyone who was charged and jailed for selling it previously.
rob_c 5y ago
Hmm, did the party just do something incredibly unpopular recently or something?...
xyzwave 5y ago
This was a month ago (July 14th).
- paulddraper 5y ago
  It's never too late to post some random US politics to HackerNews.
  - erglkjlaegr 5y ago
    Even though it's completely against the site rules.
cronix 5y ago
Now that half the states have already legalized it and reaps a ton in tax revenue, the fed wants their cut at a time when tax revenue is drying up. These states have been ignoring federal law for a very long time now, without consequence, so there might as well not be that law if you're not going to actually enforce it.
- pm90 5y ago
  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.
  - cronix 5y ago
    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 egregious). When Oregon first started its recreational program in 2016, they collected about $20M in taxes [1]. In 2020, it was $133M. Other states are similar. It has a lot to do with $$$, it always does. Politicians sell ideas using emotions, but we have to dig deeper. [1] https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/Financial-reporting-receipts-public.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/F...
    - monocasa 5y ago
      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".
Evidlo 5y ago
Why not leave this to the states to decide?
- jkingsman 5y ago
  This would enable that. Right now, in states that have legalized, retailers and users are still in contravention of federal law.
- cronix 5y ago
  12 states have completely legalized recreational cannabis use (like alcohol - 21yrs and over), and 36 for medical use, so they have been.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  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.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Well, not quite, since it still comes with a bunch of federal restrictions like that 10 oz limit. Letting the states decide would mean that feds get out of the game entirely on this.
    - dllthomas 5y ago
      That's fair; if the intent of the parent comment was that this doesn't go far enough, then I don't think I disagree (and certainly not for this reason).
- redisman 5y ago
  Marijuana shops can’t access banking, customers and businesses are still in theory breaking federal laws
tofuahdude 5y ago
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?
- duxup 5y 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.
- conradev 5y ago
  My guess would be that the intent is to put a roadblock in the way of anyone trying to make an illegal secondary market.
- duskwuff 5y ago
  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.
ProfessorLayton 5y ago
I hope this means it can be purchased online and mailed easily. Right now municipalities have taken the opportunity to tax it overzealously, and we could use some competition on that front.
- pionar 5y ago
  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?
  - ProfessorLayton 5y ago
    Either way more competition is good, and competition doesn't have to be across state lines. Right now it is possible to drive over to the next county with lower sales taxes/fees. I can save $42.50 on my next iphone simply by buying it in the county where my job is, before I head home.
erglkjlaegr 5y ago
FUCK YOUR WEED How about the entire Biden regime resigns in disgrace! We have tens of thousands of American citizens in Afghanistan he is leaving to FUCKING DIE. FUCK DEMOCRATS! FUCK LIBERALS!
karmasimida 5y ago
Not even controversial...
purple_ferret 5y ago
Why make things so complicated (so they fail)? Just pass a bill removing it from the Schedule 1 list! It's absolutely illogical for it to be on that list.
gzer0 5y ago
I find it amusing that "weed" is on the same tier of drugs as Heroin, LSD, MDMA and it is an entire class above Cocaine, fentanyl, oxycodone [1]. Schedule I drugs — High abuse potential. — There is no accepted use for these drugs in medical practice. — They cannot be prescribed. — Drugs include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline. Schedule II drugs — High potential for abuse and dependence. — Generally require non-refillable, written prescription. — Drugs include morphine , codeine , methadone , oxycodone , hydromorphone , meperidine , fentanyl , cocaine... [1] https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_link&anchor=H268753597#H268753597 https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_... Note: the above is a free version of UpToDate (physician portal that is widely used in the field.)
- int_19h 5y ago
  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.
- lmkg 5y ago
  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.
dang 5y ago
Proposed bills usually go nowhere, so are usually off topic for HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bills%20propos&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
killion 5y ago
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.
hirundo 5y ago
The elephant in the room is named Biden. Even if this gets past the senate, is there any reason to think that the president would sign it? The bill sure isn't veto-proof. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-marijuana-legalization-white-house-says-minutes-after-senators-unveil-new-bill/ https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-mar...
- jfengel 5y ago
  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.

104 points by norov 5y ago

codq 5y ago

Seems strange to me that a purportedly high-integrity journalistic organization would refer to it as ‘weed’ in the headline. Is ‘cannabis’ not click-baity enough for Reuters?

athenot 5y ago
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.
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  that makes sense. What is pseudo-medical? Drugs to alter mood can be prescribed, but if they aren't is it recreational or self medication? If boredom is causing distress, could the drugs taken to ease it be considered medical? That may be a really bad idea for robust mental health, but sadly that is sometimes true for the prescribed drugs as well.

frankbreetz 5y ago

>>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 can choose to not ingest weed, I have to eat and it is quite difficult to find disclosures about chemicals sprayed on the food available, and many of these chemical have been researched far less then weed.

jolux 5y ago
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.
- handmodel 5y ago
  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.
  - FrenchTouch42 5y ago
    "changed my memory" what do you mean by this?
    - handmodel 5y ago
      I have a weaker memory than I used to - and definitely feel extra hazy for the 4-5 days immediately after use. I think its possible some of it is just me getting older? But there are plenty of studies out there which suggest some link here so it wouldn't surprise me.
- villasv 5y ago
  > The research is young. GP didn't say research on weed wasn't needed, the point is obvious double standards and that agtech should be - but isn't - this thorough (or more, actually, but that's beside the point). So what is notable here is that this call for research doesn't come from being reasonable, it comes from partiality with plausible deniability.

DaveExeter 5y ago

>The draft set the minimum age required to buy cannabis at 21 21? Haven't we as a society progressed past this pernicious discrimination!

tyre 5y ago
The brain is still developing at that age and marijuana has well documented effects on brain development.
duxup 5y ago
At some point you pick a number, it will always seem somewhat arbitrary.
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  How about the same number that lets you vote, and decide where you live, or get drafted, and get married without parental consent, and get medical care without parental consent?
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    we should be increasing some of those numbers to 21 too
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Voting, moving out, getting medical care, and marriage generally don't negatively impact your body and brain. Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said. (And getting drafted... well that should just go away all together).
    - easton 5y ago
      Cigarettes are 21 in the US as of three years or so ago.

Bhilai 5y ago

> 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.

petschge 5y ago
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.
comrh 5y ago
I think putting the opposition party on the record on this issue is part of the strategy because it is seen as broadly popular.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
the_lonely_road 5y ago
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.

neither_color 5y ago

I'm not a smoker but Im glad this is finally happening. It's tragic how many people had their records ruined by minor possessions charges and I hope they're made whole. I think a non-trivial portion of any new legal sales should go to anyone who was charged and jailed for selling it previously.

rob_c 5y ago

Hmm, did the party just do something incredibly unpopular recently or something?...

xyzwave 5y ago

This was a month ago (July 14th).

paulddraper 5y ago
It's never too late to post some random US politics to HackerNews.
- erglkjlaegr 5y ago
  Even though it's completely against the site rules.

cronix 5y ago

Now that half the states have already legalized it and reaps a ton in tax revenue, the fed wants their cut at a time when tax revenue is drying up. These states have been ignoring federal law for a very long time now, without consequence, so there might as well not be that law if you're not going to actually enforce it.

pm90 5y ago
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.
- cronix 5y ago
  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 egregious). When Oregon first started its recreational program in 2016, they collected about $20M in taxes [1]. In 2020, it was $133M. Other states are similar. It has a lot to do with $$$, it always does. Politicians sell ideas using emotions, but we have to dig deeper. [1] https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/Financial-reporting-receipts-public.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/F...
  - monocasa 5y ago
    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".

Evidlo 5y ago

Why not leave this to the states to decide?

jkingsman 5y ago
This would enable that. Right now, in states that have legalized, retailers and users are still in contravention of federal law.
cronix 5y ago
12 states have completely legalized recreational cannabis use (like alcohol - 21yrs and over), and 36 for medical use, so they have been.
dllthomas 5y ago
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.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Well, not quite, since it still comes with a bunch of federal restrictions like that 10 oz limit. Letting the states decide would mean that feds get out of the game entirely on this.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    That's fair; if the intent of the parent comment was that this doesn't go far enough, then I don't think I disagree (and certainly not for this reason).
redisman 5y ago
Marijuana shops can’t access banking, customers and businesses are still in theory breaking federal laws

tofuahdude 5y ago

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?

duxup 5y 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.
conradev 5y ago
My guess would be that the intent is to put a roadblock in the way of anyone trying to make an illegal secondary market.
duskwuff 5y ago
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.

ProfessorLayton 5y ago

I hope this means it can be purchased online and mailed easily. Right now municipalities have taken the opportunity to tax it overzealously, and we could use some competition on that front.

pionar 5y ago
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?
- ProfessorLayton 5y ago
  Either way more competition is good, and competition doesn't have to be across state lines. Right now it is possible to drive over to the next county with lower sales taxes/fees. I can save $42.50 on my next iphone simply by buying it in the county where my job is, before I head home.

erglkjlaegr 5y ago

FUCK YOUR WEED How about the entire Biden regime resigns in disgrace! We have tens of thousands of American citizens in Afghanistan he is leaving to FUCKING DIE. FUCK DEMOCRATS! FUCK LIBERALS!

karmasimida 5y ago

Not even controversial...

purple_ferret 5y ago

Why make things so complicated (so they fail)? Just pass a bill removing it from the Schedule 1 list! It's absolutely illogical for it to be on that list.

gzer0 5y ago

I find it amusing that "weed" is on the same tier of drugs as Heroin, LSD, MDMA and it is an entire class above Cocaine, fentanyl, oxycodone [1]. Schedule I drugs — High abuse potential. — There is no accepted use for these drugs in medical practice. — They cannot be prescribed. — Drugs include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline. Schedule II drugs — High potential for abuse and dependence. — Generally require non-refillable, written prescription. — Drugs include morphine , codeine , methadone , oxycodone , hydromorphone , meperidine , fentanyl , cocaine... [1] https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_link&anchor=H268753597#H268753597 https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_... Note: the above is a free version of UpToDate (physician portal that is widely used in the field.)

int_19h 5y ago
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.
lmkg 5y ago
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.

dang 5y ago

Proposed bills usually go nowhere, so are usually off topic for HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bills%20propos&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

killion 5y ago

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.

hirundo 5y ago

The elephant in the room is named Biden. Even if this gets past the senate, is there any reason to think that the president would sign it? The bill sure isn't veto-proof. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-marijuana-legalization-white-house-says-minutes-after-senators-unveil-new-bill/ https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-mar...

jfengel 5y ago
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.