[toomuchtodo]

Imho, a significant part of the problem is gerrymandering [1]. A certain party has outsized influence because of gerrymandering (but this shouldn’t absolve moderate/corporate Dems of their failings either, especially with Biden opposing legalization; read the room my dude).

1.8 million voters over the age of 55 age out every year, and election cycles are every two years. We’ll get there eventually (on Medicare for All and marijuana legalization), it’s just a matter of time. Until then, keep knocking it out at the state level. [2]

[1] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/20...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._j...

[redisman]

It’s part of the problem but both parties have had total control in the last 5 years and yet nothing has been passed on the federal level. The problem is that all the representatives are in the over 75 yo group

[AlexTWithBeard]

The part of the problem is that everything these days has to be done on federal level.

There's even federally mandated shower flow rate [1]. Just leave this shit up to the states.

[1] https://www.waterpik.com/shower-head/blog/shower-head-gpm/#:....

[eigen]

> There's even federally mandated shower flow rate (2.5 GPM max). Just leave this shit up to the states.

from your link, some states can set lower.

| To conserve resources and save money, some state and local governments mandate even lower GPM flow rates than the federal regulation.

| Examples of national and local regulations include:

| * New York City and the state of Colorado require a maximum of 2.0 GPM

| * California, Washington, and Hawaii require a maximum of 1.8 GPM

would you have states set a min flow rate?

[username90]

Why should it be illegal to use a 3.5 GPM shower in a water rich state? That is the standard people prefer with no regulations.

[AlexTWithBeard]

I would rather have it set at town building code level.

[redisman]

Yes because of the supremacy clause. That’s not really new? Many states have acted on it but the federal laws still fuck things up for individuals and businesses

[throwaway0a5e]

This is what you get when congress delegates its lawmaking power to the executive bureaucracy.

Congress itself is mostly too dysfunctional to micromanage on that level.

[mcny]

> The part of the problem is that everything these days has to be done on federal level.

I absolutely hate this state rights argument. I for one would gladly support repealing the words the states from the tenth amendment.

States don’t have magical rights. People have rights.

I have a feeling anyone who supports “state rights” would also support the idea of “separate but equal”.

Please do not associate yourself with the hypocrites who are all for state rights until California wants to regulate automobile emissions.

[AlexTWithBeard]

Sorry, what's wrong with California regulating emissions?

People have rights. And the most straightforward way to cater for these rights is to split people into groups. If 90% of people in Alabama don't want weed legalized, don't force it upon them. Save the vigor for what's really important.

[mcny]

> Sorry, what's wrong with California regulating emissions?

Nothing. Ideally it would be at the federal level so California wouldn't have to do it though.

> If 90% of people in Alabama don't want weed legalized, don't force it upon them.

No. The hypothetical ninety percent of people in Alabama have no right to restrict the rights of the other ten percent. It doesn't affect them. They should stay out of it.

[AlexTWithBeard]

> The hypothetical ninety percent of people in Alabama have no right to restrict the rights of the other ten percent

My castle - my rules.

I have close to 100% right to restrict smoking in my home.

I have close to 0% right to restrict smoking on the whole planet.

The boundary is somewhere in between.

[throwaway0a5e]

Why does this stuff need to be at the federal level? CA has a very different air quality situation than Alabama. Why can't they both regulate air quality as they see fit?

[ajmurmann]

> both parties have had total control in the last 5 years

Neither party had total control. Now everything gets fillibustered. You only get around it with 2/3 majority or if you can turn it into a budget-related bill and get it through budget reconciliation.

[jimbob45]

That’s a bit myopic to claim that the nation’s struggles are due to one party’s inability to achieve a majority, isn’t it? Evil sits on both sides of the aisle.

The Democrats have a majority now and did in 2010. They haven’t even attempted to pass marijuana legalization. I have my theories as to why but they certainly have nothing to do with gerrymandering.

[anoonmoose]

Majority doesn't matter if you don't have 60 votes in the Senate, unless you think "attempting to pass"/performative legislation matters, which I do not.

[akvadrako]

Well you have to attempt it to see. I can imagine marijuana legalization getting a few GOP votes.

[toomuchtodo]

Schumer has legislation in the Senate teed up. Needs enough support to get past Republican holdouts and Biden.

> Key Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), said Tuesday they would work to repeal federal prohibitions on marijuana cultivation and use, vowing to make progress on an issue that has growing public support but still faces sharp objections from most Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-schumer-mar...