Face it, the compromises are already more dramatic than the legalization of pot. Legalizing pot would gain support from ~49% of the population, depending on location. What could grease the wheels of this proposal with the public more than this (short of ending Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, if that)?
Didn’t work for DADT repeal. Maybe if they add a federal marijuana tax. Maybe DADT repeal would have passed if they added a federal gay tax. Not for rich gay people though, they pay too much in taxed already.
Ok, so if poor gay people pay high taxes on their pot if it used as therapy for their homosexuality, could it then be added to the compromise, or probably not?
Sorry <inhale> <choke/> <snort/> </inhale> what was the question again?
I wanted to know if Congress would consider adding a federal decriminalization of pot clause to the omnibus compromise bill, considering some of the compromises already agreed to are rather infuriating.
Is this a joke? Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but it would be appear rather odd if this was actually done. (And, quite frankly, I don’t think decriminalization of pot is nearly as important as the tax cuts–which 67% of Americans oppose when it comes to extending them for the wealthiest 2%).
Note a joke. There sure is a lot given out to the top 2%. How about giving something obvious to some other interest groups?
One could smoke pot 24/365 and still know better than to extend benefits to corn ethanol.
I’ve noted several jokes on this topic. And I agree with you. But if Bernie Sanders is the only senator to stand for a better bill in the first place, who do you expect to stand up for this?
~49% of the population, depending on location.
Pro-legalization types can’t even get a ballot proposition passed in California. Get real.
Maybe if we legalize pot conservatives will be too stoned to exercise their greed…and the rich will have to start paying more appropriate taxes? I dunno, that’s all I got.
No, I think the idea is that the rich will be able to legally sell marijuana, and snuff out any competitors with low prices (because they can afford them) and then raise the prices after everyone else is gone.
As for the California thing: there’s just not enough motivation when you’ve already got medical marijuana and can easily get a prescription.
They were too stoned to vote?
Fuck, already used that one.
See? Exactly.
Seriously, are liberals fucking going to get anything!?
Why should they?
Because they voted as citizens, rather than being bought by foreign interests.
Speaking for myself as a liberal, the status of pot is about the bottom of my list of priorities.
They voted for spineless representatives. Why should they expect negotiation to produce favorable results?
Or are you referring to the representatives themselves? In what way did they display more citizenship than their opponents?
They probably could get marijuana legalized by giving the rich another tax break. I’m pretty damn sure if they said anyone with a net worth over $100 miilion wouldn’t have to pay any taxes at all it would pass before Christmas. Soon after Christmas, the very rich would be the only ones that could afford to get high. I don’t see liberals getting any real wins in this game at all.