Posted on 04/06/2022 9:39:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Republicans who oppose federal marijuana prohibition vote against your legalization bill, you probably are doing something wrong. That is what happened last week, when the House of Representatives approved the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act by a vote of 220 to 204.
The ayes included 217 Democrats but only three Republicans, two fewer than voted for the MORE Act when the House passed it in 2020. The meager and waning GOP support for the bill suggests 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.
The 2020 vote was the first time that either chamber of Congress had approved legislation that would remove marijuana from the list of federally prohibited drugs. But as expected, the MORE Act went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The Senate is now evenly divided between the two parties, with Democratic control depending on Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote. So even if Democrats unanimously supported a legalization bill, they would still need the support of 10 Republicans to overcome a filibuster.
Democrats seem determined to ignore that political reality. Both the MORE Act and the legalization bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) plans to introduce this spring include unnecessarily contentious provisions that are bound to alienate Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to resolve the untenable conflict between federal prohibition and the laws that allow medical or recreational use of cannabis in 37 states.
According to the latest Gallup poll, 68% of Americans think marijuana should be legal, including 83% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans. Even Republicans who are not crazy about the idea should be able to get behind legislation that would let states set their own marijuana policies without federal interference.
Such legislation can be straightforward. The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, sponsored by then-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), consisted of a single sentence that said the federal marijuana ban would not apply to conduct authorized by state law. Its 46 co-sponsors included 14 Republicans -- 11 more than voted for the MORE Act last week.
The Common Sense Cannabis Reform Act, which Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) introduced last May, is 14 pages long. So far it has just eight co-sponsors, including four Republicans, but that still means it has more GOP support than Democrats managed to attract for the 92-page MORE Act, which includes new taxes, regulations and spending programs.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) thinks Congress never should have banned marijuana because it had no constitutional authority to do so. He nevertheless voted against the MORE Act, objecting to the "new marijuana crimes" its tax and regulatory provisions would create, with each violation punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The 163-page preliminary version of Schumer's bill doubles down on the MORE Act's overly prescriptive and burdensome approach. It would levy a 25% federal excise tax on top of frequently hefty state and local taxes, impose picayune federal regulations and create the sort of "social equity" programs that gave pause even to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida), the MORE Act's lone Republican co-sponsor.
GOP support for marijuana federalism is clear from the fact that 106 Republicans voted last April for the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which would protect financial institutions that serve state-licensed marijuana businesses from federal prosecution, forfeiture and regulatory penalties. The SAFE Banking Act would already be law if it had not been blocked by Schumer, who insisted that his own bill take priority.
Pot should remain ILLEGAL.
Democrats grasping at some populist issue to sell to the American people for elections. That is what this is, it appeals to independents.
Never. They use it as a motivator to get their base to the polls.
I think meth and heroin should be distributed for free to all democrats
Have a neighbor who has been on that sh#t since the VN war.
Acts effd up, talks effd up, and walks effd up.
He is effd up!
Just like the present POTUS we have in office. Matter of fact, thinking about it, he is exactly like him.
“Pot should remain ILLEGAL.”
Yep, like we don’t have enough drug problems as it is.
LOOK at California, Oregon and Washington. Homelessness and crime has skyrocketed since legalizing drugs.
Pot should remain ILLEGAL.
Apparently Congress got the power to outlaw things nationally via the Wickard v Filburn case where SCOTUS ruled that Congress can regulate anything that could possibly be sold across state lines regardless of whether it actually was.
The fact that the Dems are tacking on a tax on marijuana means it will be legal only if the taxes are paid on it. They should ask California how well that’s working out.
“When Will Democrats Get Serious About Repealing Pot Prohibition?”
Right after they’ve determined just the right formula for a deadly mixture of pot and fentanyl.
Less live people equals less CO2.
I believe that legalization of Mary Jane without updating firearms ownership prohibitations is one component of the war of personal fire arms ownership....
While I’m against full legalization of pot, they first need to figure out what constitutes under the influence while driving, and if legalization will prevent people from owning firearms.
Legalizing marijuana isn’t very helpful although we are insane for incarcerating those who are caught with it.
Good luck trying to tax something that is as easy to grow as a tomato plant.
Since when are the Republicans in control of the Senate? It says it died in the Republican controlled Senate. When was this bill?
IIRC few,if any,are jailed for having small quantities. It’s the distributors.
No, most will say they started with alcohol. If you want to go back even further you could say they started with milk.
If pot can be safely used, without consequences endangering the user or others, as its supports would argue. Then there can be no down side to banning legal excuses of responsibility from actions taken under its alleged influence. Folks should held as responsible for their actions with pot as without it. Including being responsible enough to limit their own consumption to levels they can so handle. If, on the other hand they intend users to be waived of responsibility “because they were too stoned to know any better,” to be allowed to damage others while being excused of liability, to draw on public welfare or medical care because they are no longer capable of providing for themselves, then their legalization argument breaks down.
Businesses that use delivery vans-—such as florists—will be out of business if they cannot find drug free drivers.
IF I am your vehicle/liability insurance company- I will NOT insure a person on any drugs.
Good luck trying to tax something that is as easy to grow as a tomato plant.
Problem with putting a tax on marijuana is there is already an organized criminal network established for distribution and sale of illegal drugs. And they tend to be violent. They’re the ones who will be selling the untaxed weed which will likely be cheaper than the ‘legal’ stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.