SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has introduced a bill (alt) that has been described by Marijuana Majority as the most far-reaching marijuana bill ever filed in either chamber of Congress. It would legalize cannabis federally by removing "marihuana" and tetrahydrocannabinols from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. But it would go much further by withholding money from states with racially or financially disparate arrest and incarceration rates for cannabis-related crimes (effectively all states where cannabis is illegal):
The bill would legalize marijuana at the federal level and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.
Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.
Those "aggrieved" by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to "reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs" for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.
Booker says that he will work towards bipartisan support for the bill.
Serious legalization attempt or just advertising for a 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:21PM (6 children)
What the hell? You could support the ban for a completely different reason. If the status quo happens to align with how you want the world to be, you're not going to repeal the law "because their reasoning is wrong" then pass another bill to do the exact same thing "but this time the reasoning is right!" I dunno, maybe *you* would.
You seem to be saying pragmatism is outlawed in this context.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:40PM (1 child)
Except there IS no valid reason to support the ban. If you disagree, I'd like to hear the reason, because I've never heard one, other than "it's illegal". The reason it's illegal is because of Anslinger and the anti-marijuana movement which was founded on racist ideas as discussed before, and also (thanks to 'turgid' for this quote):
You have a great point: the law should be repealed because the reasoning is wrong. If there is valid reasoning, then they can pass another bill to do the exact same thing, but with valid reasoning. But since there's no valid reasoning, the new bill won't pass. Yes, *I* would do this, because it's a better way to have public policy. We clearly aren't going to get it legalized easily just because it doesn't make sense to have it criminalized, it costs society a fortune in incarceration and enforcement and lost productivity, etc. etc., so maybe that's the approach: attack the original reasoning used to pass the laws in the first place, and have it repealed on that alone. After that, it'll be much harder to ban it because they'd need a much better reason than "it makes white women have sex with 'Negroes' and entertainers" to actually get the new bill passed. After all, it's generally hard to get new legislation passed, especially if it's controversial, so maybe we really do need a mechanism in government so that laws are repealed if the original arguments for the laws are found to be bogus.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 02 2017, @08:50PM
Oh, I'm in favor of legalizing weed, too. I just take issue with your claim that anybody who doesn't agree, automatically holds a specific argument and that makes them a bad person.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:11AM (1 child)
I just can't comprehend other people thinking they have right to tell other people how to live their lives when it comes to innocuous behaviors. Obviously I'm not talking about murder, rape, and pillage -- it's OK to tell people they can't harm others -- I'm not talking about all of the victimless crimes out there like smoking pot, which probably has a lower societal cost than horseback riding (broken necks), skiing (broken legs), or mountain biking (shattered shoulders).
Where do these type of prohibitionist people get off? I don't smoke pot because I don't think it is fun. I know people who do because they enjoy it. BFD. You don't like pot, don't smoke it -- that should be the end of the question. Instead, the prohibitionists have to rob me via taxation for prisons, police, and military actions -- ruin people's lives over bullshit -- create a violent and deadly class of black marketeers -- spawn death through untested impure products making it in to the public's hands ... for what? Because you're a better Puritan than Jeff Sessions? Shove that attitude up your ass and choke to death on it. Fucking Puritans cost us as a society, way too much.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 03 2017, @04:01PM
For the record, I agree with you.
I'm just taking issue with Grisnakh being some sort of arbiter declaring everybody has the same motivation and are therefore evil.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:50AM (1 child)
There's still the original reason for the ban. It's just too useful. Hearst got it banned due to needing to protect his pulp paper business. They'd just invented a machine to separate the fiber from the rest and hemp is a much better source of cheap paper then wood. There has been a lot of other uses for Marijuana (a word invented to replace hemp because no one would ban such a useful substance). From the high quality oil to the high quality cellulose to the high quality food source in hemp seed to all the medical uses for a plant that is hard to patent. Lots more I'm forgetting such as a handy way to repress minority votes in a land where a criminal record means no vote (no job either).
Sadly there will always be resistance to something that can fuck up various industries.
(Score: 2) by dak664 on Thursday August 03 2017, @01:08PM
Oil magnates also wanted to eliminate competition from hemp oil (as they had done earlier with ethanol, for long enough to force Ford to make gasoline-only cars). We are paying in many many ways for the greed of those captains of industry.
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html [ozarkia.net]