Historic House Vote Approves Broad Marijuana Federalism

This vote is "a hopeful sign that the harmful policies of marijuana prohibition will soon be a relic of the past."


The House of Representatives in June resoundingly approved a spending rider that would bar the Justice Department from interfering with the implementation of state laws that allow the production, distribution, and consumption of marijuana for medical or recreational use. The amendment, a broader version of a rider that has protected state medical marijuana programs since 2014, was supported by 62 percent of the legislators who voted, including 41 Republicans and 226 Democrats.

"This is without a doubt the biggest victory for federal cannabis policy reform to date," Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, said in a press release. He called it "a hopeful sign that the harmful policies of marijuana prohibition will soon be a relic of the past."

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D–Ore.), says "none of the funds made available by this Act to the Department of Justice may be used" to "prevent" states from "implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana." It applies to the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as well as the 47 states that have legalized some form of cannabis for medical or recreational use.

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R–Ala.) spoke against the rider. "Under the Controlled Substances Act," he noted, "the Drug Enforcement Administration defines Schedule I drugs as having no current acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse."

Rebutting Aderholt, Blumenauer argued that marijuana's Schedule I status cannot be rationally justified. "If we were rescheduling drugs today, cannabis probably wouldn't be scheduled at all," he said. "It is widely known now that there are, in fact, medicinal purposes to be obtained from using cannabis. That is why [legislators] in the gentleman's own state just approved medical marijuana. They are not goofy. They are not misled. They understand that there is compelling evidence."

We don't know yet whether Blumenauer's amendment will be part of the final appropriations bill approved by both houses of Congress. And unlike changes to the Controlled Substances Act, spending riders aimed at protecting state autonomy with respect to marijuana policy have to be renewed each year.

The rider is nevertheless important, since it is the first time the House of Representatives has approved a broad form of marijuana federalism that encompasses general legalization as well as medical use. Steven Hawkins, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, called it "the most significant step Congress has ever taken toward ending federal marijuana prohibition."

NEXT: How Real Are Post-Brexit Food Fears?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A very good sign. But just what will be considered "preventing" states from "implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana"? How broadly or narrowly that phrase is construed will determine whether this rider has a broad impact toward effectively ending marijuana prohibition, or almost no effect at all.

    1. -1000

    2. In this thread, a certain Whihny individual keeps missing the very clearly made point that regardless of when the US gained independence, we could not destroy our economy by ending slavery immediately. This was not a system we implemented, so blaming us for it is blaming the conized parties, and that is unreasonable.

      But, the guy is a retard.

    3. just as Cindy explained I am inspired that some people can get paid $7036 in four weeks on the internet .
      hop over to this site....>> http://earny.xyz/PQ9BUhu

  2. Good news indeed!

    Sad to say, this article clearly shows that the "D" party is far more pro-individual-freedom and small-Government-Almighty oriented than is the "R" party, on this issue. I leaned heavily R over D in my youth, thinking they were small-government-oriented. Well, yes, I guess... "Except when they are not"... Which is about the majority of the time lately!

    1. -1000

      1. Is it a 2,000 mile public works program to keep out the Mexicans that you consider a small-government policy, or is it the rounding up entire factories of workers? Perhaps it's adding trillions of dollars to the debt? Is that small government?

        1. It's "not the $100 trillion New Green Deal"

          That's gotta hurt. Everything is small government compared to that gigantic stupidity.

          1. You seem to be repeating the fallacious implication that doing nothing about climate change is cost-free, when in reality it's the most costly option, and the longer we do nothing, the more government money will have to be spent. Not to mention the non-monetary costs. The climate change denial that has infested places like this has made the price of mitigation go up far more than any socialist acting deliberately. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

            Meanwhile Trump is spending trillions on absolutely no positive contribution to humanity. How many goddamn chances does he get with you people?

            1. "Tony
              September.22.2019 at 3:35 pm
              You seem to be repeating the fallacious implication that doing nothing about climate change is cost-free"

              Nah I'm pointing out that you support an unprecedented government expansion that will cost 100 trillion.

              YOU are desperate to find excuses to make it seem like you're not doing that.

              1. If we get a Congress that can pass a Green New Deal of that magnitude, I'll retire from the internet, because I'll have won it.

                Life is about choices. Sticking your fingers in your ears and denying scientific facts that are inconvenient to your political worldview is the choice children make.

                1. You want power and money you can't earn on your own. It's always been obvious and your leaders are giving the game away.

                  And you're still doing nothing but making excuse for the unprecedented power expansion and cost of your plan. Demanding things are the way you say isn't an argument. Screeching "SCIENCE!!!" then censoring your opponents isn't convincing. Sending children to demand action while your pet foremr president is buying sea front property makes you look unserious. As I said, it gives the game away.

                  " because I’ll have won"

                  Funy how you were whinging about this kind of thing when I was destroying you yesterday.

                  It's nice to know that got to you.

                  I win again.

                  1. Didn't you use to accuse me of using socks (even though I never have), and imply that was a bad thing?

                    1. No, I just accused you of socking. You're fucking stupid, and support unprecedented expansion of power and spending 100 trillion on banning planes and farts, so anything you thought was implied is useless.

                      I win again.

                      Caught Wearing Trudeau face - 3

                      Tony - 0

                    2. I'm not the most popular person around here, but I can guarantee you that nobody here likes you or whatever it is you think you're doing here. I would be meaner, but I think you suffer from some kind of pitiable mental illness, and that's just not your fault.

                    3. Ahahahahaha what the fuck are you talking about did I RALLY JUST SLAP YOU SO HARD that you resorted to

                      "no one like you?"

                      Ahahahahahahah ahahahahahah YOU'RE TONY!!!! AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

                      Caught Wearing TRUDEAU FACE - 20

                      Tony - AOC

            2. Once you figure in world economic growth its actually the least costly option to do nothing.

              Would you rather have the world rich and warm or poor and cold?

              1. I realize you don't like to admit it, but government spending money on public works programs, R&D, etc., is one of the greatest boons to economic growth known to man.

                This is a lame bullshit talking point, and you're still ignoring the fact that doing nothing means huge disruptions in the global climate that will kill and displace millions or billions of people. And how would that be for "economic growth"?

                1. "I realize you don’t like to admit it, but government spending money on public works programs, R&D, etc., is one of the greatest boons to economic growth known to man"


                  1. I'm sorry you chose such a stupid, easily disprovable political worldview, but that's really your problem.

                    "We'll just do without empirical justification, thanks. After all, it is rather devastating to everything we believe."

                    Well done. Just really such a spectacular philosophy.


                    2. You type like a baby.

                    3. And you cry like one haahahahaahahahahahhahah

                      Caught Wearing Trudeau face - 9

                      Tony - AIDS

                    4. You are an insane orangutan keeping score at his own poo-flinging contest. I wish this were entertaining, but it's just so sad.

                    5. So what does that say about you that you're so invested in it?

                      Oh right this is the part where we're supposed to ignore that you KEEP POSTING AND CRYING.

                  2. ^TDS

                2. but government spending money on public works programs, R&D, etc., is one of the greatest boons to economic growth known to man.

                  Can be. Can be one of the greatest boons. But

                  1. You can't spend money on infrastructure that doesn't exist. That's where the economic growth comes in.

                  2. Ask China how their building of roads, bridges, even whole empty cities in the middle of nowhere is helping out their economic growth.

                  3. When you consider how many 'millions or billions' re-organizing the world to allow a small, technocratic, elite to control every facet of our lives and all the people that will have to be killed or starved into submission - I think 'warmer and richer' comes out with a net lower body count. Not that there will be 'millions or billions' killed or displaced by climate change in the first place.


                  1. "Warmer and richer." I look forward to seeing that pop up in right-wing talking points now that we're inching beyond, ever so slowly, outright denial of the facts. You'll forgive me if I don't trust your analysis.

                    "a small, technocratic, elite to control every facet of our lives"

                    If you can't get beyond disingenuous hysteria, I'm not going to consider you an honest interlocutor on this subject.

                    Put this in your brain: the entire point of activism on climate change is to maintain the world we are already accustomed to, not to radically change it.

                    You are the ones favoring radical change. And who knows what form of governments come out of it, if any.

            3. Well, that might be true...if anthropogenic climate change was a thing. But the proponents of the Climate Change narrative have ‘adjusted’ the data so often and so blatantly, that it’s hard to accept. If the narrative is true, why are they lying?

              It would help if any of the ‘solutions’ they offered weren’t potential ECOLOGICAL disasters. Battery powered cars? Rare earth metals needed for the batteries, mostly from China, and China doesn’t care how many peasants die of groundwater poisoning, and then they’re toxic to dispose of. Wind turbines? The same, plus they don’t really work in a grid. Same for Solar panels.

              No, there is precious little reason to take the doomsayers seriously. So, the Green New Deal is the archetypal Big Government Project; it will cost the flipping earth, it won’t actually solve anything, and it will NEVER go away, no matter how obvious its failure.

              1. Everyone grab your wives and children and hide under your beds! The alarmists are coming!

                Read Wikipedia for like half an hour on the subject of climate change. Then you'll be at least informed enough to begin to have an opinion that contains any damn sense.

                1. "After a more than a decade of SUV popularity it wasn't exactly a genius level decision to produce a "mass produced" EV sedan."

                  Wikipedia has been subject to intense warmist gatekeeping and spinning for over a decade, led by one objectionably awful William Connolly.

          2. Goof and bad. Good that our government is finally waking up to this stupidity and bad because of all the things needing our attention, the only thing these fucktards is Washington can manage to agree on revolves around smoking pot.

            How much more of an embarrassment can we be to the rest of the world?

    2. Heffalumps are against individual freedom on fewer, and less important, issues than are Donkeys. Marijuana legalization is much less important than socialized medicine.

      1. What they say and what they do are not the same. I don’t feel any freer than I did 4 years ago. No real noticeable difference.

        Our political system is a shell game. You like the red tie or the blue tie? The whole thing is a sham to keep the power brokers in power and keep extracting the products of our labor and expanding control over our lives.

        It is a shit sandwich either way. Mayo or mustard?

        1. Oh, I don’t know. My labor is fairly compensated. No shit sandwich here.



    3. If you're roughly my age, then the red team was just out of the years when they did some small reforms (under Clinton, no less!) when you came around to voting age. They were still claiming that they were small government, but Dubya was going to put paid to that notion shortly.

    4. Sure. How do you feel about cake baking?

      1. Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then.

        Gay wedding services? Gimme a break! Carve out an exception to mandating "equal" services for this one; problem solved! But people WANT to fight! That's the essence of SOOO many problems... People WANT to fight, rather than find a passable fix, and go on! And "D" and "R" people are BOTH guilty of this particular sin!

        1. It's been primarily state, not federal, civil rights laws that have swollen the definition of "public accommodations" to include pretty much any business with a front door.

        2. "Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then"

          "Do that surgery bigot! I can enslave you because I think you're a bigot."

          "Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then."

          Essential for traveling!!! What a sad fuckin lie to hide behind.

          Slavery is slavery nigga. You're pro slavery and you think a couple sad name calling tantrums can change that.

          Fuck off slaver.

          1. Hi ToolPoopy. Yeah, we know... You are a nigga to Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Minions. Now please go away! Or grow up... One or the other.

            1. Fuck off slaver.

              You can't enslave people. So stop making excuses for the fact that you want to enslave people.

              An not and.

            2. You're a slave to your inner moron. You can DO IT, and set yourself free!!! Just try harder!!!

              1. “USA threw Brits off of our backs in 1789, moron!”

                And the economic system the Brits installed took a little longer. Which WAS THE ENTIRE POINT THAT YOU MISSED LOLOLOL .

                God how fucking stupid ARE YOU shit eater?


                1. The Bill received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807. However, while this Act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, slavery itself continued for another generation. It was not until the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that slavery itself was eventually abolished.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Slave_Trade_Act_1807

                  Brits ended their slavery before USA did. You are SUCH an utter moron, it is a waste of time debating with you!

                  Is your mama still to be blamed for what YOU are doing TODAY, because she didn't spank you enough when you were a 3-month old spoiled little brat? Is there no such thing as free will?

                  The saddest thing here is that people knowing very little about libertarians come to this site. It makes me want to BARF that some people may think that we are all little stupid morons and bigots like ToolPoopy! Get lost, asshole!

                  1. "Brits ended their slavery before USA did."

                    But not before installing an economic system in their colonies which relied on slavery.



                    2. You didn't get my point that you're a stupid moron. There's no way I can get you to understand that you're a stupid moron... Because you are a stupid moron! I give up! Go right ahead and keep on being a stupid... AND EVIL... moron then!

                    3. Ahahahahah you FINALLY realized what you missed and feel stupid! Good. You are.

                      An not and

                  2. "Brits ended their slavery before USA did." Because their slaveowners were nearly all in the West Indies, and did not have a vote in Parliament.

                    1. The English not only permitted their warmer colonies to create economies based on agriculture and slave labor, but used tariffs and regulations on trade, to make it nearly impossible to do anything else. E.g, they required ships to or from the colonies to stop in England and pay tariffs rather than taking their cargo directly from the source to the destination,. They also did not allow the New England colonies with little use for slavery to ban it.

                    2. They did not allow the colonies to elect representatives to Parliament in England. This plus the unfair trade policies caused the colonies on the North American continent south of Canada to revolt. (The West Indies and Canada depended too much on Great Britain for protection against the French and Spanish to join in - so a generation after slavery ended in GB, a Parliament elected with no colonial input finally abolished slavery in the colonies.)

                    3. Thus, the new-born USA faced a situation created by the Brits, where the economies of at least 5 out of 13 states (Georgia, N & S Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland) depended nearly entirely on slavery. Slave plantations also played a significant role in Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, and even Massachusetts had both slaves and free blacks. So immediately abolishing slavery would give at least 5 states a choice between bankruptcy or withdrawing from the union, and be costly to the others. If the north had insisted on ending slavery in the Constitution, they would have split the country, and likely ended up with the smaller half.

                    4. So the Constitutional Convention had to reach a compromise on slavery that kept the southern states in the USA. One part of this compromise expired in 1808, and Congress banned importing more slaves on the day it expired. Other parts insured that abolition would require a constitutional amendment, and that the southern states would hold the power to block that, at least until many new states were added. This was a result of British colonial policies intended to keep the colonies as agricultural appendages of Great Britain...

                    5. The hope of most of the delegates - including slave plantation owners like Jefferson - was that slavery would go into a natural decline and eventually the south would be ready to abolish it. But the expansion of cotton-growing kept the south agricultural with high labor requirements. It also wore out the soil, so the slavers had to move west now and then.

                    Then the attitudes hardened until finally in 1860 the South split the Democratic party rather than accept a platform of allowing the pioneers in new territories to vote on whether to allow slavery. That allowed Lincoln to win.

                    Lincoln was not an abolitionist, but merely wanted to keep all new territories free - and most of this territory was quite unsuitable to the southern plantation system anyhow. But that was enough for the South to decide to pull out of the union. Given the way things had gone in Kansas, it was pretty clear that even if the north let them go peacefully, that peace would soon be broken when the CSA tried to seize lands in the west. So a war started, and Lincoln, who never wanted a large number of free blacks unless he could ship them back to Africa, wound up freeing most of the slaves to make points with the Brits and win this war.

                    1. Thanks! Interesting, informative read!

      2. Dear Abby? Am I in the right place?!?!?

        Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
        My life is a mess,
        Bill Clinton stained my dress,
        I can’t get it off my hairy chest,
        ‘Cause my boyfriend’s a pest,
        I can’t talk of my sexual past,
        ‘Cause he gets all aghast!

        And Abby, my boyfriend and I have been “seeing” each other for 41 years!
        Now our home state will let us get gay-married, we’re a itchin’ to go get us a hitchin’!
        But boyfriend INSISTS on us getting gay-married in churches that don’t want us, by preachers that hate us, and get photoed by people that can’t stand us, and on and on and on!
        I think it’s ‘cause his pet Hamster Huey and his Gooey Kabloooey rejected him in the 5th grade, and he’s NEVER gotten over it!
        Abbey, PLEASE don’t tell us to get therapy, we can’t afford it! We COULD afford it, but he gives all of our money to politicians who say they are a gonna fix all of this mess with more laws!
        So Abby… Besides therapy, what can I do to help my boyfriend settle for getting gay-married by people who like gays?

        Love and Smooches, Dude B. Gay

      3. Laughable. Keep it up, Team Red.

        1. Right but you're a racist and you want to liquidate people.

          September.21.2019 at 1:14 pm
          Hey, if Britain doesn’t do something soon these fucking uppity hajis"

      4. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      5. You do realize that even when Republicans are against non-discrimination laws that cover gay people, they aren't against non-discrimination laws categorically.

        It's just that the half-dozen cases over the last decade that involve gay people get disproportionately huge amounts of press compared to the hundreds of non-discrimination cases that don't involve gay people that are filed every year.

        All of which is to say... Republicans aren't against forcing you to "bake that cake". They're just against forcing you to "bake that cake" if you're a Christian refusing gay folk. Every other case? They're fine with.

    5. Weed isnt helping your dementia.

      You love all of the authoritarianism in the left as long as you can ignore it by getting high. Worked well with Soma in brave new world as well. You're a joke.

      1. So the authoritarians of the Left want to give people a WEEE tad more of WEEEED freedom...

        WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?!?!? Government Almighty DAMN them all to HELL and back!

        1. They also want to control your medical usage, energy usage, what you can eat, how much you can pay, what profit you can make, what words you can use, what you can say publicly....

          Keep getting high dumbass.

          1. I get high on nothing but life, and some booze... And coffee. Just FYI.

            You get high on self-righteousness. It's a vice, not a virtue. And a MAJOR one at that!

            1. The weird thing is you think the rantings of a lunatic effect the target of said lunatic lol.

              You also dont know what self righteous means as I havent made moral arguments here dumbass.

              1. OK, then, carry on...

                ...with your immoral arguments!

                1. I have made nor arguments on morality, moral nor immoral, lunatic.

                  I love when you sign deeper into your stupidity. Can I call you psycho jeffrey?

                  1. Dig deeper.

                2. USA "democratic" past includes slavery, no voting rights for women, breaking of treaties with, and abuses of, Native Americas, forcible silencing of opponents of wars (Civil War and WW I especially), imprisonment in concentration camps of Japanese-Americans, etc. Most of these were done and justified w/o much in the way of pro-abusive "moral arguments". They were just done... In a spirit of "this is the way we have always done things"... Conservationism in other words... AND in a spirit of self-righteousness! My tribe right, yours wrong! Plain and simple! The moral arguments were made by the ANTI-abuse elements!

                  And so it still is today... Take-away from my above details is...

                  "AND in a spirit of self-righteousness!"

                  1. "SQRLSY One
                    September.22.2019 at 2:14 pm
                    USA “democratic” past includes slavery"

                    NOPE. That's our colonial oppressors, installing an economic system that relied on slavery. Yak know, France England and Spain for example.

                    Americans are the ones who died to throw off that yoke.


                    1. USA threw Brits off of our backs in 1789, moron! Learn some history, or let the adults talk w/o being disturbed by your stupid, disturbed and childish one!

                    2. "USA threw Brits off of our backs in 1789, moron!"

                      And the economic system the Brits installed took a little longer. Which WAS THE ENTIRE POINT THAT YOU MISSED LOLOLOL .

                      God how fucking stupid ARE YOU shit eater?



                    5. HE









                    6. "Brits ended their slavery before USA did."

                      But not before installing an economic system in their colonies which relied on slavery.


                  2. Everything is so terrible and unfair!

                    And I feel so guilty!


            2. "SQRLSY One
              September.22.2019 at 12:24 pm
              I get high on nothing but life"

              Yes we can see you stopped taking your meds. It's probably why you're eating feces again.

      2. Hey GOP douche,

        Let’s talk about all the DoD spending under Dump. Obama presided over one of the largest drops in defense spending since WW2.

        1. Still terrible.

        2. While expanding spending on everything else. Additionally, the cute to defense spending were not properly aimed at bad programs or waste but did impact training, equipment purchase and overall troop readiness. At the same time he started multiple new conflicts and drove our forces to their breaking point. Great talking points moron.

        3. I want to talk about hwo you're a racist and want to liquidate your enies.

      3. +100

    6. "Sad to say, this article clearly shows that the “D” party is far more pro-individual-freedom and small-Government-Almighty oriented than is the “R” party, on this issue."

      Before I could say that, I'd have to see the entire bill; Poison pill amendments ARE a real thing, remember.

      1. No you wouldn't. Every single D candidate supports the New Green Deal.

    7. So, SQRLSY One, I guess you're proud of Trump for getting the corporate income tax lowered, right?

      1. Yes I am actually. Fair is fair. And he's also cut regulations here and there. That's good also. There's a LONG way to go, though! Under the Trump regime, I still have to get permission to blow on a cheap plastic flute!

        To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

  3. Democrats are federalists only when out of power. When they are back in the White House they will continue to expand the government at the expense of the states.

    1. +100

      1. Do you do anything here more than slurp up GOP bullshit?

        1. God. You're just so bad. You dont improve. It's like 6th grade all over again and again and again for you.

        2. He points out that you're a racist, and adhere to a political philosophy that has been responsible for more death and sufferong than any other in history, with no successes to show for all the death and torment.

          1. The European Welfare state? Where has that failed exactly?

            1. No, the Gulagy Great Leap Forwardy one.

      2. Poor Britney Troll is having trouble getting Hillary's cock out its mouth.

    2. They never claim to be federalists.

      Republicans do and then they want to tell states they can't set their own emissions standards.

      1. "They never claim to be federalists."

        Well that's a stupid lie. Just look at California.

        1. Democrats are not states-righters on principle. They are fine doing things at the state level if that moves things forward, and they're fine with doing things at the national level if that is possible and preferable. Republicans claim to be states-righters across the board but are often hypocrites about it.

          1. "Tony
            September.22.2019 at 4:03 pm
            Democrats are not states-righters on principle"

            Only because you have no principles.

            These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence. The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”

            - Gavin Newsom, governor of California

            1. Name a Democrat who doesn't think it's OK for California to set its own higher-than-national emissions standards. Just one.

              It is virtuous that Democrats are flexible on the matter rather than dogmatic. Dogma is bad, mkay. It's bad because you'll find that not every problem can be solved in exactly the same way, and it's delusional to think you've already found the method that applies to all problems.

              Republicans are not even for states rights except in rhetoric. They want to impose their theocratic bullshit on everyone, but they're fine starting at the local level. They're worse than hypocrites. They're liars, propagandists, victimizers, and theocrats. Not to mention nihilists whose sole mission is to loot the country and watch it rot.

              1. You started with "never" which became a giant wall of moved goalposts.

                Caught Wearing Trudeau face - 222

                Tony - eugenics

              2. The country is rotting?

                Man, you libs have a dreary outlook. Why not just say........

                “EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!!!” ........

                And be done with it? Haha.

                1. And Republicans are such optimists.

                  "Everything is terrible and unfair and it's Mexicans' fault!"

  4. This vote is "a hopeful sign that the harmful policies of marijuana prohibition will soon be a relic of the past."

  5. The Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional so letting Congress tip-toe around that fact is a waste of every American's time and money.

    There is no power in the US Constitution to ban any product or service. This includes marijuana or any other drug.

    1. In fact, the marijuana species of plants has been around before the founding of the USA. Hemp was used as rope on ships. You would would be surprised what they used to mix with tobacco into snuff. Coca-Cola used to have cocaine as an ingredient.

    2. The power Congress claims to be asserting here is in fact the Commerce Clause. While I unquestionably agree that the Commerce Clause has been distorted beyond all recognition by successive Supreme Courts bending over backwards to defer to the government's power, stating "there is no power" as a fact isn't really accurate or helpful.

      More significantly, even if the Commerce Clause powers could be pruned back to prevent a federal ban on scheduled substances, you'd still have to contend with two facts. First, that state governments possess the power to ban whatever substances they like without constitutional restraint, and that the federal government can ban the import of whatever it feels like across national borders without reliance on the Commerce Clause, but rather as one of its enumerated powers.

      1. Even if you are correct about the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause does not imply a power to ban products and services.

        If things are banned, there is no trade to even regulate. It makes no sense. Regulation is not the same power as banning.

        The Commerce Clause DOES allow for regulation of products and services across state lines and internationally. Weed grown intrastate gives no power to the federal government to regulate it [period] Congress can only regulate interstate commerce.

        1. The way they get bans into regulation is that they simply cast the net wider, creating a wider class of articles they're regulating, and then the regulations include which items are permitted and therefore which are banned. So for instance they'll be regulating drugs, and the regulation will say the drugs have to be good, and that here are the ones that are not good....

    3. Um, you forgot the 18th Amendment 😛

      1. 18th Amendment:
        Section 1
        After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

        Um, the 18th Amendment does NOT ban alcohol. The 18A backs up states that dont want alcohol manufactured, sold, transported, or imported into their state.

        If you have alcohol in your house, the 18A does not even help states ban alcohol. States would still have to amend their state constitutions to ban products (alcohol) and services as they don't have plenary powers to ban products and services.

        1. "as they don’t have plenary powers to ban products and services."

          "If", not "as", unless you've read 50 state constitutions, and verified that none of them actually grant that power.

      2. The 18th Amendment was an Amendment - previous constitutional limits did not restrict it. Although it did not confiscate existing stocks of booze, it DID ban the production or importation of any more, and the sale of all the alcoholic beverages that were aging in American warehouses. It took another Amendment to reverse this, and this amendment gave the states wider powers than they have for other products.

        But why could Congress then ban marijuana and other drugs without an Amendment? Because FDR had intimidated the Supreme Court. Because the laws against opiates and cocaine began as mild regulations of commercial products sold interstate, and only gradually grew into the massive FDA Bureaucracy and then the DEA. Because the marijuana ban was originally formulated as a tax - it then took the SC about 25 years to decide that a tax that was never intended to be collected was not a tax and could not be used to extend federal powers, and then they came up with other excuses...

  6. He called it "a hopeful sign that the harmful policies of marijuana prohibition will soon be a relic of the past."

    Let me introduce you to this thing called "vaping". Just because the enemy has stopped shooting at you and started shooting at the guy next to you instead is no reason to hope the enemy is interested in a cease-fire. There's no reason to hope the harmful policies of marijuana prohibition are going to be a relic of the past, they've just acquired a new target.

  7. Federalism? Sullum attributes too much philosophical depth to this or anything that spews from our national representatives, and the significance of actions by any one party.

    How about, "Democrats cater to their constituents by loosening regulations on pot, but have dozens of restrictions and mandates for other behaviors waiting in the wings"?

    1. +100

    2. The hope is to keep the masses high enough to not realize what's going on.

    3. The Trump administration is going to let pork producers do their own health and safety inspections.

      Does that sounds like a good idea? Even to a small-government guy? Really?

      1. Sure.

        I'll buy pork from local suppliers I trust.

        We get it. You're incapable of adulting and afraid of everything.

        1. It's rational to be afraid of the things that killed lots and lots of people before health and safety regulations were invented. Plumbing is a communal thing as well, usually built by governments, and much preferable to shitting in the street, I'm sure you'll be forced to agree.

          Trust your local supplier. How many people have a local supplier? How many will have them once government gets its dirty hands out of the business of antitrust?

          1. "Tony
            September.22.2019 at 4:02 pm
            It’s rational to be afraid of the things that killed lots and lots of people before health and safety regulations were invented."

            Not really. Knowledge has vastly improved. Wel, for some of us it has... Funny that your fear is based on your own ignorance of the facts on the ground.

            " Trust your local supplier. How many people have a local supplier?"

            Anyone who wants one. Local may require some flexibility. But yes, we get it. You’re incapable of adulting and afraid of everything. Spend inordinate amounts of money to do things you're too lazy to do yourself, installing unaccountable functionaries is the behavior of weak, incapable people who know they can't adult.

            1. Knowledge has vastly improved... why? Magic? Spontaneous market forces? Why could this be. Hm.

              I am being the adult when I want to maintain food safety inspections not done by the sellers of the product themselves. Because that is, like, you know, a rather easily corruptible process. But you'd have to think about things for a nanosecond to understand that.

              How about we let food producers submit their own inspections, and then we'll see if more or fewer people get sick. Then we'll have definitive evidence of which approach is better, and then one of us will genuinely "win" an internet. Deal?

              1. "Tony
                September.22.2019 at 4:22 pm
                Knowledge has vastly improved… why? Magic?"

                No Tony, you're the one who believe in free shit. Focus.

            2. Tony believes, in the face of all experience, that incompetent and uncaring people magically become competent and caring when they draw a government paycheck. That's not a failure to "adult", but a failure to learn and to use logic.

              1. So was food more or less safe before modern safety inspections were invented?

          2. Before health and safety regulations were invented was also before widespread, reliable refrigeration, antibiotics. Technology had a lot more to do with safer food than government regulations.

      2. Food producers have a pretty good incentive not to make their customers sick.
        I don't know how meat inspections go, but I've seen how government restaurant inspections go and they are definitely not a guarantee that a restaurant won't do all kinds of gross shit that you wouldn't like if you knew about it.

  8. so the State will now control the peasants with drugs and the patina of liberty

  9. "If we were rescheduling drugs today, cannabis probably wouldn't be scheduled at all,"

    So why mess around the edges? Just pass a law rescheduling it, already.

    1. +1000000000000000

      ...or repeal the Controlled Substances Act.

      Democrats could have done this during Obama's first term as President when they controlled most of the government. They chose to pass the unconstitutional ObamaCare instead.

      1. Yeah, the GOP could have done that in 2016 when... hahahaha... yeah, right... with all the religious bigots who think marijuana is the devil’s weed. You think the GOP is going to legalize the truly good shit like acid and MDMA and coke. LOL... what planet do you live on?

        1. Look. The idiot doesnt realize the drug ear started with pleas from the inner cities. How cute.

          1. Did you know he is a racist? And supports murdering his enemies?

      2. Poor "Britney troll".

      3. People in Congress are trying. For years they had to deal with Petty Pete Sessions blocking their bills left and right, now that he's gone the major obstacle is Mitch the Bitch. Where's the news on the STATES Act? The CARERS Act? The Marijuana 1-to-3 Act? etc. Are they even gonna vote on these things? Or is it another "well they're gonna sit on the bill in the Senate so why bother voting" thing...

  10. spending riders aimed at protecting state autonomy with respect to marijuana policy have to be renewed each year.

    *** facepalm ***

    1. Exactly. Anyone who says Democrats are pro-legalization of marijuana are lying.

      Democrats have not legalized weed anywhere in the USA these last 100 years.

    2. Yeah, that’s to keep Trump’s federal agents from raiding my pot shop across the from the Safeway. I’m most definitely for it, GOP suckup.

      1. Was it OK when Obama's Federal agents were raiding those pot shops?

        1. 'Cause you know those are the same guys today as were doing this in 2010.

        2. “USA threw Brits off of our backs in 1789, moron!”

          And the economic system the Brits installed took a little longer. Which WAS THE ENTIRE POINT THAT YOU MISSED LOLOLOL .

          God how fucking stupid ARE YOU shit eater?


      2. Well, we know you are for racism and murdering your enemies.

    3. Agreed about the facepalm, and thanks for pointing that out to us! I had not caught it!

      Many if not most politicians put themselves and their party above the good of us peons. I'm not trying to be cynical, but realistic. So, keeping that in mind...

      Demoblican politician thinks, "Well, we could fix it semi-permanently, at least as permanently as these things go. But then people have longer-term individual freedom semi-secured! Even if it's "merely" the freedom to NOT have their kids shot in the cross-fire between rival "pot" dealers! They will now feel more free to vote "R" here, on OTHER issues!

      But LOOKEE HERE! We know that the "R" party is heavily opposed here! Let's exploit that weakness... Make it clear to voters who care about this issue, that they had better KEEP voting "D", or their new-found freedom is going to evaporate quickly! Like, next year! Almost automatically, with many "R" in power!

      Scum-sucking politicians won't admit it, but this is how they think about things! "R" party had better catch up with the times, if they want to keep "R" party in much of any power any more!

    4. +100

    5. Well, it gives them a new election issue: "re-elect us or the spending rider expires!"

  11. I’m thinking of forming an affinity group: We Could Advance the Cause of Human Freedom If Most of the People Calling Themselves Libertarians Would Die In A Car Fire or WCATCHFIMPCTLWDIACF for short. Who’s coming with me?

    1. Anyone have any guesses which sock handle this "Britney Troll" is?

      1. My guess is Hihn and Shreek had a gayby.

      2. Or angry jeffrey. This sock tends to come out when Jeff has been smacked down and laughed at. He had a very bad week last week and behold, the troll account.

    2. Count me out.

      Because actually, principled libertarians — IOW, the ones who take money from Charles Koch — have consistently been on the right side of history on the most important issues. Like open borders. As much as I support the Democratic Party, I have to admit they only recently embraced unlimited, unrestricted immigration. Whereas Koch / Reason libertarians have been promoting it for years.


      1. So sock, what’s the problem with having a border between Mexico and the US that resembles the one between Belgium and France? You seem obsessed with the issue as well as your XY chromosomes? What’s going on? How bad is it for you that you are a White male?

        1. "LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          September.22.2019 at 1:02 pm
          So sock"


  12. AOC continues to be the best Congressional ally we Koch / Reason libertarians have right now.

    At this point, the bigger national scandal isn’t the president’s lawbreaking behavior - it is the Democratic Party’s refusal to impeach him for it.

    She wants to #Impeach Drumpf, just like we do. She wants to #AbolishICE, just like we do. So what if she disagrees with us on minor issues like the minimum wage?


  13. It took a lot of courage for a few dozen Republicans to cross their party and base on this one. The drug war has everything a clinger would want: Prudish authoritarianism, disdain for modernity, flattering the superstitious slack-jaws, and a dose of racism.

    As usual, Democrats will shape American progress against the wishes and works of right-wingers.

    1. Are drug warriors among your favorite stompees in the culture war, Art?

      1. Yes. Shoving progress and freedom down drug warriors' throats is a great achievement of the liberal-libertarian alliance . . . and a pleasure.

        1. Yeah Obama did yeoman's work rescheduling it...

          And then telling his DOJ not to prosecute any pot related crimes...

          And letting banks do business with pot shops...

          1. You keep focusing on the black guy. I will pay attention to which side is and should be winning.

            1. Look, the Republicans are awful, but Democrats want to subordinate individuals to the state. They want to regulate every aspect of our lives. Your "side" is a joke.

    2. Soooo . . . Joe Biden? Barak Obama? BIll and Hillary Clinton? All committed drug warriors.

  14. your content is highly valuable. keep going on. thumbs up Big Bash Ladder

  15. My big beef with weed legalization is with very few exceptions, the states that move toward decriminalization almost always start passing up fucked up gun laws that infringe on the 2A

  16. I don't support Trump so much as I oppose the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, confiscating 400 million guns from 100 million Americans, etc., so news regarding Trump asking the Ukraine to launch a criminal investigation against Biden's son doesn't really phase me. In other words, if the Democrats impeaching Trump makes it more likely that they can implement their agenda as outlined above, then I oppose impeaching Trump.

    For those of you who haven't heard, . . .

    "WASHINGTON—President Trump appeared to confirm for the first time that he discussed former Vice President Joe Biden and his son on a July call with Ukraine’s president, as some senior Democrats revived talk of impeachment hearings over reports that the president asked a foreign government to undertake a probe designed to damage his potential opponent in the 2020 election."

    ----Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2019


    1. Grinding my teeth, I have to reluctantly agree... Which scum-bucket politician is less of a scum-bucket than the next (or set or class of same v/s other set or class of same).
      Then after thinking that for months on end, the fall comes around, I cannot find a clothespin strong enough to staunch the stench, and I go and vote Libertarian anyway! "Throw away my vote", yeah, I know... But a humanoid has to do what a humanoid has to do..

      1. If the Democrats weren't working so hard to make it a choice between Trump and authoritarian socialism, it'd be a lot easier for libertarians like me to sit on the sidelines.

        1. The whole system is a game rigged to get people to ignore principle and support something they do not believe in. It is designed to crush your soul, knock the wind out of you, submit meekly.

          Apparently it works.

          1. Like not putting hundreds of thousands of people in the penal system because of non-violent drug crimes?

            1. This is a good bill but not the point I am trying to make.

              More of a broader point about what our system of government has become and some of the limitations imposed by a two party system.

              For example many people were not enthusiastic about voting for Donald Trump. They did because Hilary was a worse choice. I can understand that, she was horrible. What we have now is looking the same way.

              Why should that be? There seems to be a systemic failure to produce such a result where there are no good choices.

              Because the two parties with vast amounts of cash, power, and huge organizations have created a duopoly in American politics. One in which each side must focus on discrediting the opponent. This tends to Machiavellian results. It is intentional and suits both sides Vote for me or you will be ruled by - satan. Both parties do this because it allows the duopoly to persist and squashes any dissenters. It takes away your power as an individual to stand up for what you believe in.

              For the individual it is soul crushing to have to choose between Scylla and Charybdis.

        2. I've got good news. Democrats are not actually proposing authoritarian socialism.

          You're welcome.

          Fucking idiots.

      2. I am with you SQLSY. At least I can sleep at night knowing I did not violate my own principles.

        I think it is not an accident of the system that we are left with only bad choices. It is a feature. We are conditioned not to trust in our own hearts and minds. The way to do that is to get us to betray ourselves.

        There is no such thing as throwing your vote away. It is a myth we have been conditioned to believe by the government and media.

        1. Thanks Echospinner! Obviously I agree. I persistently "throw my vote away" to the Libertarian Party. What is the probability that MY one individual vote will EVER throw a major election one way or the other? For all practical purposes, it is ZERO.

          But voting libertarian can show the major parties that they MUST steal items off of the libertarian party platform, or else! The Libertarian Party can serve as "kingmaker" by "stealing" votes from one party or the other. "If all the "L" people had voted "R" instead, "R" would have won, and we wouldn't have Comrade Bernie as POTUS right now".

          Booo-Hooo, "R" party, I will say, if that comes to pass... You'd better start stealing MAJOR items off of the "L" platform if you don't want this to happen again!

      1. Set fazers on stunningly awesome! (That's what I say when faced with some stunningly awesome headlights).

      2. Now do punctuation!

    2. Pretty much. As awful as Trump is, he's yet to mention anything about wanting a guaranteed government job for everyone, nor does he insist that we throw away everything on the hope that we "save" the planet or whatever.

      Medicare for all...just wow...wow. Just wow.

      Hopefully, AOC runs for President before climate change takes us out...

  17. I wonder how this bill is going to do in the Senate, which is presided over by the freedom-living GOP. It’ll just fly through I bet. Remember, the defining issue of whether you are a libertarian is how many rocket-propelled grenades you think the government should allow you to possess. I say the number is 121 so that defines me as “moderate libertarian.” Libertarianism has nothing to do with abortion and drugs and fun butt sex. That’s a common misconception.

  18. Jesus, what is it, retard day at the Reason comments section?

    1. Is it a day that ends in 'Y'?

      1. Just seems particularly bad today.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.