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) by edIII on Wednesday August 02 2017, @10:06PM (1 child)
I think you're way off with the white-man-bashing today. Along with some others.
Not everyone votes. So people like me that don't vote are not expressing anything. At least not officially. Most people can see through the propaganda because they either experimented with it, or are close to somebody that has. It's a different kind of generalization, where people see MJ users as the caricatures in mass media like Dave Chappelle in Half-Baked. That was racially diverse, and some people's take away from that is that MJ makes you a "bad person". Somebody subject to their own desires and living a life of Hedonism. There is the stereotype that stoners are locked into their couch, obviously not at a real job generating to our national GDP.
So don't discount the religious reasons for being against it. Whether or not they are valid is arguable, but they are very much sourced from religion when Satan and Hedonism is mentioned. I've met plenty people that are/were against it, and it is not based on fear of the Black or Hispanic man.
I think you are also discounting the massive amount of propaganda surrounding it that affects people's views. It can affect them in ways not related to racial animus. You could be against it from a scientific viewpoint, or the viewpoint of keeping the body pure, etc. The blanket assumption that racial fears and animus simply must be the reason is simplistic.
Lastly, DO NOT DISCOUNT !!PROFIT!!. There is a large amount of profit involved and I was surprised to hear from many that they were NOT voting for legalization. In California's case I voted AGAINST it. That was because it was a huge giveaway for a few rich people setup in the new regulated environment. Over 60% of growers in Northern California are now STILL ILLEGAL. Not because MJ is illegal, but because they're violating zoning laws and business regulations. No longer DEA, but some state employee entering your business and informing you that you are shut down. Al Capone was taken down because of the IRS, and there are quite a few people now shut out of the legal market.
It's like rider bills in Congress. The Senator introduces the no-child-left-hungry act, so emotionally loaded it *must* pass, while in the back 10 pages it lists out the pork projects approved with it. Hard to fight against it when the opposition shows a hungry child with Struthers crying through handfuls of cake shoved in her mouth.
Almost anybody that is making a living off MJ is hesitant for full legalization. It's not hard to understand. A) Do the right thing and legalize. B) Vote no, but still have a house being paid for, food on the table, etc.
You guys missed many reasons why you could be against it. Not saying they are valid, or ethical, but they are there.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:56PM
I understand the argument very well: my own state of Ohio recently voted down a legalization bill precisely because it would have been a giveaway to a few friends of the governor who would be the only ones legally allowed to grow and sell. I'm never surprised when politicians are out for a quick buck rather than trying to do what's best for the voters.
However, the simple fact is that at the policy level, the purpose of the War on Drugs is and has always been to allow the government to go after racial minorities. This is well documented from the 1930's to the 1970's and onwards. And there is a clear understanding from all levels (police, citizens, and others) that when white people are caught with drugs, the punishment is far lighter (or nonexistent) while black people and black men go to jail.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.