Marijuana

The House Just Approved Marijuana Legalization Again, but GOP Support Remains Nearly Nonexistent

Just three Republicans voted for the MORE Act, two fewer than in 2020.

|

The House of Representatives today approved a bill that would repeal the federal ban on marijuana by a vote of 220 to 204. The yes votes included 217 Democrats but just three Republicans, two fewer than voted for an earlier version of the bill, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, when the House approved it in December 2020.

The nearly nonexistent Republican support for the MORE Act in the House does not bode well for its chances in the Senate, where 10 Republican votes would be needed to overcome a filibuster even if Democrats unanimously supported the bill. The same goes for the legalization bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) plans to introduce next month.

The MORE Act and the draft bill that Schumer unveiled last July both include unnecessarily contentious provisions that are apt to alienate Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to resolve the conflict between federal prohibition and state laws that allow medical or recreational use of marijuana. Those provisions, which include new taxes, regulations, and spending programs, suggest that Democrats want credit for trying to legalize marijuana but are not really interested in building the bipartisan coalition that would be necessary to accomplish that goal.

When the House approved the MORE Act in 2020, it was the first time that either chamber of Congress had voted in favor of marijuana legalization. But as expected, the bill went nowhere in the Senate, which at the time was controlled by Republicans. The Senate is now evenly split between the two parties, with Democratic control hinging on Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote. Any serious attempt to repeal federal prohibition therefore depends on attracting Republican support, which Democrats have made little effort to do.

There is much to like in the MORE Act, which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.) reintroduced last May. The bill would remove marijuana from the list of federally prohibited drugs; eliminate federal criminal penalties for manufacturing, distribution, and possession; and require automatic expungement of federal marijuana convictions. It also would remove various marijuana-related restrictions on immigrants, government contractors, federal employees, and recipients of public benefits.

If Nadler had stopped there, the bill probably would have attracted more than three Republican votes. But the MORE Act also would impose a 5 percent federal excise tax on cannabis products, rising to 8 percent after four years, in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. The bill requires marijuana suppliers to pay an annual "occupational tax," obtain federal permits, report information to the Treasury Department, and comply with packaging, labeling, and storage regulations. The tax and regulatory provisions, including civil and criminal penalties for violating them, account for half of the 92-page bill.

The MORE Act would use the marijuana tax revenue for various purposes, including drug treatment, "services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs," loans for marijuana businesses owned by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals," and grants aimed at reducing "barriers to cannabis licensing and [to] employment for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs." Those "social equity" provisions gave pause even to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.), the lone Republican cosponsor of the bill.

Schumer's draft bill, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, doubles down on that overly prescriptive and burdensome approach. It would impose a federal excise tax on marijuana starting at 10 percent and rising to 25 percent by the fifth year. State-licensed marijuana businesses, which already are regulated by state and local governments, would also be supervised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), and the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The bill envisions detailed rules dealing with production, storage, transportation, packaging, labeling, advertising, and sales.

Like the MORE Act, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act would use revenue from the federal marijuana tax to create new spending programs. The Community Reinvestment Grant Program would "fund nonprofits that provide services to individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, such as job training, reentry services, and legal aid, among other services." The Cannabis Opportunity Program would "provide funding to eligible states and localities to make loans to assist small businesses in the cannabis industry owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." The Equitable Licensing Grant Program would "provide funding to eligible states and localities to implement cannabis licensing programs that minimize barriers for individuals adversely affected by the War on Drugs."

One of the 202 Republicans who voted against the MORE Act today was Rep. Dave Joyce (R‒Ohio), a co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. While Joyce remains committed to repealing the federal ban, he is not keen on the "social equity" stuff and thinks the MORE Act does not create a "responsible regulatory framework." He has introduced a competing legalization bill, the Common Sense Cannabis Reform Act, that aims to treat marijuana like alcohol.

Joyce's bill is just 14 pages long, and it does not include a federal marijuana tax. He calls it "the only Republican-led comprehensive cannabis reform bill that does not include any MORE Act provisions."

That seems like a veiled reference to the 133-page legalization bill sponsored by Rep. Nancy Mace (R‒S.C.), the States Reform Act, which is closer to the MORE Act but aims to attract more GOP support. Mace, who also voted against the MORE Act today, would impose a 3 percent excise tax, which would remain at that level for at least 10 years. According to Mace's summary of the bill, the 10-year moratorium on raising the excise tax is meant to "ensure competitive footing in the market." In other words, a relatively low tax rate will help legal marijuana businesses compete with black-market dealers, who do not pay taxes.

The States Reform Act would create a Law Enforcement Retraining and Successful Second Chances Fund, which would funnel marijuana tax money to three existing programs: the Crisis Stabilization and Community Reentry Grant Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program. Some of the money also would be assigned to "veterans' mental health," "state opioid epidemic responses," "preventing underage use of cannabis," and the SBA "for supporting newly licensed small [marijuana] businesses through its various programs."

Mace's bill, like Schumer's and the MORE Act, envisions a regulatory role for federal agencies, but it is relatively restrained and gives states more leeway. For example, it says the FDA "shall have the same authorities with respect to cannabis products that it has with respect to alcohol," such as label regulation for certain beverages, "and no more."

According to the summary, that provision "ensures that cannabis products in interstate commerce will be treated like alcohol and that the regulatory issues harming the industrial hemp-derived CBD industry will not be repeated in the cannabis space." The bill also "grandfathers 'designated state medical cannabis products,'" including "those produced consistent with state law," to ensure "continued access" for patients. The FDA "may still prescribe serving sizes, certify designated state medical cannabis products as a ministerial duty, and authorize new drugs or approved new uses of drug applications to create new pharmaceutical grade products, but may not prohibit the use of cannabis or its derivates in non-drug applications, such as in designated state medical cannabis products, dietary supplements, foods, beverages, non-drug topical solutions, or cosmetics."

Continuing the analogy to alcohol, the TTB "will be the primary regulator of cannabis products in interstate commerce," while the ATF "will serve as the primary law enforcement agency supporting the TTB's work, exactly as it does in the alcohol space." The Department of Agriculture would regulate cannabis crops in the same way it regulates raw materials for alcoholic beverages, such as grain and hops. The bill "applies to cannabis the same recordkeeping, liability, reporting, packaging, and labeling requirement[s]" that apply to the alcohol industry under the Internal Revenue Code. The bill would prohibit cannabis advertising that is false, misleading, or aimed at minors.

Joyce's brief and straightforward bill seems like the best approach to me. While Mace's complicated concessions are aimed at attracting Democratic support, that does not seem to have worked so far. Her bill has just four cosponsors, all Republicans. Joyce's bill has eight cosponsors, including Mace and four Democrats. Neither tally is very impressive. But even at this stage, both bills have more GOP support than Democrats managed to attract for the MORE Act.

NEXT: Florida Sued by Activists, Students, Parents, and Teachers Over LGBT School Censorship Bill

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. So, the one Republican who's made it one of her primary goals to eliminate the federal ban on marijuana, voted against this bill.

    This does not make me think 'What's wrong with Republicans?'

    It makes me think 'What's wrong with this bill?'

    1. A Republican proposed a bill that simply strikes MJ from the Controlled Substances Act and grants the feds the right to regulate it.

      But that's not good enough. The Dems needed to add an 8% Federal excise tax and a bunch of spending programs (not realizing, apparently, that states have already taxed it right back into the black market).

      Schumer wants a 25% excise tax and a slush fund for connected NGOs.

      1. I started earning $90-120/hour in my free time by completing tasks (ui60) with my laptop that i got from this company I stumbled upon on-line…Check it out, and start earning yourself for more info visit this site … https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

      2. Schumer can't die soon enough. He should take up lightning round golf.

        By which I mean he should go play golf in a thunderstorm.

    2. "This does not make me think 'What's wrong with Republicans?'

      It makes me think 'What's wrong with this bill?'"

      Written like a True Tribalist! "MY Tribe NEVER wrong!"

      Are you ready to move on to the next step, and demand the burning of all of the witches and the vote-stealing Demon-Craps just yet?

      The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

      “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

      1. Written like a True Tribalist! "MY Tribe NEVER wrong!"
        Project much ---- It's no secret the left is the [WE] mob builders.
        After all; Isn't that the very foundation of unlimited democracy??

        Those provisions, which include new taxes, regulations, and spending programs, suggest that Democrats want credit for trying to legalize marijuana but are not really interested in building the bipartisan coalition that would be necessary to accomplish that goal.

      2. Boris Badenov wants to know: Ees Plucky Squirrell making some kind of veiled reference to Madison Cawthorne, de Gee-Oh-Pee Sample George Wallace eempersonator?

        1. "Plucky Squirrell" is a retarded Democratic party shill. Any veiled references are strictly coincidental.

          1. I'd be pleased if you wouldn't insult retards . . .

        2. Plucky Squirrel wants to be invited to Cawthorne's Mad-Madison (reported) mad orgies and snow-blow parties!

          https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics/madison-cawthorn-republicans-cocaine-orgy-congress/index.html

          The *real* reason so many Republicans are mad at Madison Cawthorn

      3. God damn you say some stupid shit.

        1. Et tu, Brute?

          Are YOU TOO ready to move on to the next step, and demand the burning of all of the witches and the vote-stealing Demon-Craps just yet?

          So how long till you feel that you’ve built up your tribalistic lies enough, sufficient for you to be justified when you come over here and kill me, and steal my property? Why do you want to steal my property? I DO own MANY books, but they are CLEARLY too long and complex for you to read and comprehend!

          1. They don’t need to be burned at the stake, but if your automatic reaction to the opposition of a bill like this is “Goddamn I hate the Republicans”, you’re the fucking tribalist.

            Both parties have pulled this shit to elicit an emotional response for as long as I’ve paid attention to politics. It’s plainly evident the Democrats are just better at it.

  2. " . . . new taxes, regulations, and spending programs . . . "

    Definitely not a legalization bill.

    1. "The bill would remove marijuana from the list of federally prohibited drugs; eliminate federal criminal penalties for manufacturing, distribution, and possession; and require automatic expungement of federal marijuana convictions. It also would remove various marijuana-related restrictions on immigrants, government contractors, federal employees, and recipients of public benefits."

      That is a legalization bill.

      1. ^

        If it takes you 133 pages to say "this is legal," 'legalization' is a euphemism for what you're doing.

        1. It could take close to that many pages to list all the deletions from the US Code, with references and strikethrus.

          Looks like the best shot at getting this done would be to wait until the GOP controls Congress — and probably the White House, since Biden would veto Republican legalization bills. Unless it's like it was with the ACA, i.e. that nobody can get elected to Congress and vote for repeal once they're able to, regardless of what they run on or how they vote when they don't have the votes to make it stick.

      2. "recipients of public benefits" -- Why there's nothing better then making OTHER people pay for your drug addiction!! /s

    2. Similar bait-and-switches were tried from 1920 to 1933, offering lighter sentences for light wines and watery beer. Only the Liberal Party had pluck enough to demand repeal of the Volstead Act AND the 18th Amendment. FDR's October 1932 speech reminding voters of the repeal plank the Dems copied from the Liberal Party was what won him four consecutive elections and Truman another. Republicans only understand defeat and defunding, and even then they, like Hitler, still expect to win by gulling the superstitious.

      1. You do realize that some of the Republicans who voted against the bill is very pro-weed. They voted against the bill because it's a shitty bill stuffed with unnecessary taxes. Not because they're anti-weed.

        From the article:

        "One of the 202 Republicans who voted against the MORE Act today was Rep. Dave Joyce (R‒Ohio), a co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. While Joyce remains committed to repealing the federal ban, he is not keen on the "social equity" stuff and thinks the MORE Act does not create a "responsible regulatory framework." He has introduced a competing legalization bill, the Common Sense Cannabis Reform Act, that aims to treat marijuana like alcohol.
        Joyce's bill is just 14 pages long, and it does not include a federal marijuana tax."

        Now enjoy 2 minutes of b-roll of Mitch McConnell actually frolicking in a field of cannabis.

        1. You know Hank can barely tie his own shoes, so there’s no way he would ever admit the Democrats are in the wrong on this one.

          1. I'm hoping that The Squirrel is actually Hank in his less lucid moments, and we'll get a two-for-one blessed ringing of silence once he kacks it. Unfortunately, he seems like the kind of asshole that's going to hang on forever, screaming at the clouds and filling his shorts with shit for the next 80 years. Just like he has for the last 80.

            1. Maybe he will end up in restraints. Jacked up on Thorazine, drooling catatonically.

        2. "I'll vote for it when it is PERFECT" (Perfect like Mammary-Fuhrer, for example) is a DAMNED good way to make sure that one NEVER votes for it, while still posing virtuously!

          1. It's not just imperfect, it's downright terrible. Didn't you read the article you retarded DNC shill?

            1. BOTH PARTIES are guilty of this bullshit!!! PRETENDING to be in favor of individual freedom, but finding ANY and EVERY excuse to NOT to vote for (unencumbered) individual freedom! If Mammary-Fuhrer the Perfect Necrophiliac had an open mind, She could SEE this!

              Repeat from further below, this is what we are looking at...

              Rethugglicans won't vote for pro-individual freedom bills if they are Demon-Crap bills. Demon-Craps won't vote for pro-individual freedom bills if they are Rethugglican bills. So we can NOT have ANY approved pro-individual freedom bills! 'Cause self-righteous tribalism!

              Just like the self-righteous tribalism of (?) about 80% of morons who post here! You stupid fuckers are reaping what you sow!

            2. Above and beyond "which party authored this bill" there is THIS kind of utter bullshit, which Mammary-Fuhrer favors, but only from ONE side:

              Rethugglicans: "I'll vote for your pot-smoking freedom bill, but we have to add an 'every sperm is sacred' addendum outlawing birth control, and turning women into rent-controlled womb-hosts and sex slaves."

              Demon-Craps: "I'll vote for your pot-smoking freedom bill, but we have to add a 'Government Almighty Charity Monopoly' addendum saying that income taxes will go to 97%, so that all of the deserving poor people will benefit from this 'Government Almighty Charity Monopoly', 'cause income earners are cheap-ass skin-flints who can NOT be trusted to make their own charity choices."

        3. That is a very surreal video.

  3. If I were cynical, I'd think the Democrats don't actually want to legalize marijuana, they simply want a campaign issue on which to mobilize the stoner vote - "Republicans are denying you your weed!"

    Hopefully, the stoners will use their proverbial good judgment and see through this tactic.

    1. That seems to be true for a lot of issues the Dems claim to support

    2. "Republicans are denying you your weed!"

      Maybe, but the democrats are denying you your snacks!

    3. The Ds don't want a bill so badly that they all vote for these bills. The Rs want these bills so they filibuster them.
      This is what dumbass logic looks like.

      1. You commenting on anyone’s logic is fucking hilarious.

        And yes, the Democrats obviously don’t want these bills to pass. You know, since they actually need to work with the other half of the Congress and keep putting retarded unrelated shit in the bills.

        Fuck off, slaver.

        1. Rethugglicans won't vote for pro-individual freedom bills if they are Demon-Crap bills. Demon-Craps won't vote for pro-individual freedom bills if they are Rethugglican bills. So we can NOT have ANY approved pro-individual freedom bills! 'Cause self-righteous tribalism!

          Just like the self-righteous tribalism of (?) about 80% of morons who post here! You stupid fuckers are reaping what you sow!

          1. I’m a libertarian you retarded fuck.

            And it doesn’t take a brain dead moron to see which party is openly hostile to individual freedom at a base level.

        2. Molly is such a disingenuous shitweasel.

  4. While it maybe true that the Democrats could have done more to attract Republican support, it seems this is really a Democratic issue. I did not see anything to suggest that Democrats could attract any more than a token number of Republicans.

    Is there any real possibility that there are even 10 Republicans Senators that would support legalization? Certainly the ND referendum suggest that Marijuana legalization is a bipartisan issue for the people. It is not clear it is as bipartisan for the politicians.

    1. I think there are that many Republican senators who would support legalization if they could make it theirs and make sure Democratic senators are against it.

      1. All voters need to know is which politicians keep sending cops to kick in the door, shoot the dog and kids, and confiscate the home and bank account via asset-forfeiture looting till the economy comes crashing down to shrinking GNP. This occurred in five prohibitionist Republican Administrations. Leveraged Libertarian spoiler votes serve the dual purpose of kicking the fascist bastids out while signaling the Dems that communism is just as bad and unacceptable. It's all in the wrist.

        1. Have you always been a loser crackpot? Or is this a product of dementia?

  5. a one-line bill would get more votes.

    1. I am guessing not many more. What is real number of Republicans in Congress that would legalize weed? I am guessing you could count that on your fingers.

      What is the real number of Republicans that would support Rep. Dave Joyce's bill? Because if that bill could get 100 Republicans, I am willing to bet it would pass.

      1. What is real number of Republicans in Congress that would legalize weed?

        Why don't we allow a bill that simply removes MJ from the Controlled Substances Act without tacking on a bunch of extra taxes and spending proposals and see?

        Or maybe the Democrats are less concerned with getting the bill passed than they are with getting the Republicans to oppose it.

        1. Isn't that Rep. Joyce's bill? How many Republican co-sponsor's does the bill have?

          1. Rep Joyce's bill has 5 Democratic co sponsors and 3 Republicans.

            1. Did you just conquer your own narrative? lol..
              That's more than enough support to get it done.

              1. No, I think I proved my point. This Republican sponsored bill has less support among Republicans than it does among Democrats.

                Mr. Sullum is attempting to argue that Democrats could get enough Republican support if they just simplified the bill. I don't think that is true and I think the Democratic leadership knows this is true. So, there is no real incentive to try for a compromise bill. Democrats might just as well write the bill to please their caucus and accept that no bill will pass.

                1. Either way; it gets the bill to pass.

      2. Given that red states have legalized weed, I'd suggest a good number of them. The problem is, Democrats aren't interested in legalizing weed, they're only interested in taxing and regulating it so hard that they're guaranteed a black market in it.

        1. Not North Dakota.

      3. Fortunately, the same superstitious bigots who want you shot over weed also want men with guns to force women into the involuntary labor of reproduction. Once women voters--now stirred up the way Americans were when they realized beer was banned and jobs nonexistent--act as an unequal but apposite reprisal force, nobody is gonna care what the remaining GOP dregs want.

        1. And deviants like you want to mass murder human infants. You’re one sick murderous fucking bigot.

    2. It still would get filibustered by the Republicans.

      1. Good. Makes them easier targets.

    3. But a 1-line bill would either have no effect or be some grand "notwithstanding" provision, i.e., "Notwithstanding any provision in the rest of the US Code,...." I hate "notwithstanding" provisions, because unless you read that tiny bit out of the many volumes of text, you'd never know how much of the rest of what you read was superseded.

      1. But someone could write what was effectively a "1 line bill", where the actions of the bill actually matched the short description of the bill.

        "The purpose of this bill is to remove all federal restrictions on the plant family known as Cannabinoids."

        And then the rest of it is the usual BS legalese that only removes sections of code. Now hell, maybe that's what that 13 page bill is, and it just takes that much fucking paper to write what should logically be a one line bill...

  6. If Nadler had stopped there, the bill probably would have attracted more than three Republican votes. But the MORE Act also would impose a 5 percent federal excise tax on cannabis products, rising to 8 percent after four years, in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. The bill requires marijuana suppliers to pay an annual "occupational tax," obtain federal permits, report information to the Treasury Department, and comply with packaging, labeling, and storage regulations. The tax and regulatory provisions, including civil and criminal penalties for violating them, account for half of the 92-page bill.

    As a pro-legalization libertarian, I would have voted against this bill, and voted hard with two middle fingers raised.

    1. It's fucking absurd.

      It's also balls-out hypocritical, too. They claim that they "recognize the harms done to the community of color by these decades of policy", but they're not gonna fucking stop it from continuing to harm those communities of color in the future unless they can get 10 percent for the big guy.

      "It's important that we end these policies that have been destroying people's lives by fucking them in the ass for owning a plant, but it's more important that I get my wishlist accomplished."

  7. In the interests of both-sidesism, I'll say this: There's probably a lot of Republicans who would vote against *any* legalization bill.

    But the Democrats - and they wouldn't have to look all that hard, either - could probably find swing-vote Republicans who could pass a reasonable bill. Then they could target the Republicans who voted against the reasonable bill. But they want to lather up the rubes against *all* Republicans.

    I mean, the part about "loans for marijuana businesses owned by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals'" is like some parody of leftism out of the Babylon Bee. How the Bee even stays in business with reality constantly catching up with their jokes I don't know.

  8. I mean, I'm in favor of helping out businesses owned by disadvantaged individuals. And here's my own suggestion: Let them operate legally without slapping special excise taxes on them.

    1. Though, seriously, in an environment where weed was truly and utterly legal (i.e.: no laws regarding the substance at all on the books anywhere) I'm not sure there's a huge amount of money to be made in growing or selling something that can literally be a nuisance in your garden. The people who are getting stupid rich off of it right now are doing so in a highly distorted legal environment. (As you are obviously undoubtedly already aware.) So maybe we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. These chucklefucks are just trying to make sure that whatever minority owner can make it through all the goddamned hoops and compliance becomes fabulously wealthy, but really distorting the market environment...

      Because of course the Democrats want to make another single billionaire instead of a million people pulling six figures.

  9. Hey Democrats, pro tip: We're legalizing weed, not turning it into your own personal gulag.

  10. What we need is a decriminalization or repeal bill, accept no Substitutsky. Reason at least lets us read these looter bills. For the first time ever Americans can easily read the Volstead Act that made communism popular, filled the prisons, wrecked the economy and banking system and got citizens to hunt down and shoot dry agents in reprisal. That illuminated text is more than halfway up at Libertrans.blogspot.com

    1. You don't have to get into any of that, just de-schedule it as a narcotic, since it isn't one, and leave it unregulated. Problem solved.

      1. Any of that should be done at the state level regardless.

  11. This is the sort of overreach in bills that infuriates me.

    The simple bill that legalizes weed, puts it on par with alcohol (with the same regulatory bodies as alcohol), acknowledges the government's role in regulation and taxation (but leaves the tax provisions for a future bill) seems like a no-brainer to me. If you want to prevent a ruinously high tax rate you could do what Mace did and have a low rate with a ten-year window.

    That wouldn't prevent additional bills from adding to or raising that rate (because I'm sure someone would figure out a way around the initial rate), but the argument would be over 'more taxes' instead of 'taxes vs. no taxes'.

    That way the discussion would be forced to address the black market vs. legal businesses issue. That is the most clear, defensible, and understandable way to oppose a high tax rate.

    At the end of the day I would reluctantly support a less-simple legalization bill than continue with the untenable drug laws we have now surrounding marijuana. The drug war has claimed too many innocent victims and has created injustice for too many with no discernable gain. In general, but especially in regards to marijuana.

  12. great, more pandering to the weak-minded marijuana addicted peasantry

    1. Says the EvilBahnFuhrer power addict of "strong mind" who favors totalitarian body control and mind control!

      People huff gasoline and glue, ya know! You ready to outlaw gasoline and glue?

      1. please buy a dictionary and look up the term "non sequitur"...it will save you from further embarrassment

        1. So are you, or are you not, if favor of more pandering to the weak-minded power-addicted totalitarians?

          1. and that would be non sequitur #2, congrats champ...oh wait actually #3 ...you have an incredible ability to produce them...intellectual dilettante proud! you are

            1. Well, at least I'm capable of giving a straight answer when asked a straight (and simple) question, unlike some Perfect People that I could name. IF I were to be asked, I would respond that I am emphatically NOT in favor of more pandering to the weak-minded power-addicted totalitarians! I do NOT need to micro-manage the affairs of others, in order to boost my own self-esteem!

              You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
              https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
              From the conclusion to the above…
              These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

              SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an evil, lying asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

  13. Solid analysis Jacob..the MORE was written to fail in the Senate. We counted Senate noses in late 2019...64 Senators would vote for a one paragraph bill to apply the 10A to marijuana.

    The Dems do not want to pass MJ legislation; they expect more money and votes by keeping it illegal and then promise to legalize.

    1. The Dems do not want to pass MJ legislation; they expect more money and votes by keeping it illegal and then promise to legalize.

      They get way more mileage out of it still being a problem. Just like... well, lots of things the government does, or one half has policies regarding. If they would -- if it were even possible -- just fuck off and get out of the way, we'd be living in paradise. 90+% of today's problems in the world had their genesis in some government, I'd guess.

  14. If Nadler had stopped there, the bill probably would have attracted more than three Republican votes. But the MORE Act also would impose a 5 percent federal excise tax on cannabis products, rising to 8 percent after four years, in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. The bill requires marijuana suppliers to pay an annual "occupational tax," obtain federal permits, report information to the Treasury Department, and comply with packaging, labeling, and storage regulations. The tax and regulatory provisions, including civil and criminal penalties for violating them, account for half of the 92-page bill.

    In other words, the Republicans are on the right side of history. Because if Nadler's bill passes, we're replacing a huge number of drug warriors convictions with a huge number of drug tax warriors and convictions.

  15. Unfortunately, Dave Joyce's bill only has 8 cosponsors, and 4 of them are Democrats.
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3105/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%223105%22%2C%223105%22%5D%7D&r=10&s=2

    Why are so many Republicans still opposed to legalizing weed (as most of them have consumed the weed)?

    Similar to abortion, I suspect many/most Republicans support legalizing weed, but are fearful of pissing off the Puritanical wing of the GOP.

    1. I don't think I would compare this to abortion as I believe many Repubs are pro-life.

      But I do agree that I think they are scared of their puritanical wing when it comes to legalizing weed.

    2. I don't think that you need to be a current or former user of weed to support legalization / decriminalization / deregulation.

      I don't smoke it or ingest it or use it at all, but I still think that if someone else wants to, that's their business, not mine.

  16. This is an interesting issue. I still wonder if enough Republicans would vote for a simple, one page "let's legalize marijuana" bill. But it is clear that Democrats are too scared to try passing a straight up bill on the chance that enough Republicans will vote for it, thus removing this issue as a political weapon against Republicans.

    After all, it's more important to have an issue to beat over your opponent's head than to actually solve a problem.

  17. Very interesting communication you have and I wanted to join him. Many people take pills because they are convenient and can be taken anywhere, but they do not help all people. But I can also recommend trying CBD products. By the way, I usually buy CBD products from https://viiahemp.com/product/cloud-9-high-spectrum-gummies/. My friend already ordered and said it was quite interesting. I think you should try their products. Good luck everyone.

  18. I think it's the first step to making weed legal in the whole country. Well, it's already legal in my place, so I don't have any problems ordering autoflower weed seeds and planting them, but I understand that if I decide to move, I'll have huge problems. Or even if I want to travel, I'll have to cope with stress and anxiety without cannabis somehow.

  19. I don't understand why people accept it at all. I think it's just terrible only if you decide that your health needs it, that's why I think you can try it. I know cbd products that help great and by the way many people ask me does cbd show up on a drug test , but of course the answer is negative since it is used only for health.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.