[Bhilai]

> would expunge federal non-violent marijuana crimes, further medical research and allow cannabis companies access to essential financial services.

Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.

[the_lonely_road]

The banks are chomping at the bit to get in on this revenue and so we can hope their influence with the right is enough to move them. The expunging of crimes is probably going to be the nonstarter that kills it. The 'party of law and order' doesn't like the idea of people 'disrespecting the law' and often react strongly to any suggestion that someone who knowingly broke the law, when it was the law, being excused for that post behavior. These are the same people that insist you refer to judges as 'your honor' and are happy to throw you in jail for 'disrespecting' the judge, which in real life translates to don't you dare talk back or disagree even when they are being unreasonable or even downright hostile themselves. As distasteful as it is, I think we would be better served to remove that and focus on locking down the major win of not ruining anymore lives moving forward.

Either way, the tide is clearly turning with so many states refusing to comply with the federal ban, and the federal government refusing to punish those states for it, that it is clear it will happen eventually.

[petschge]

Sure, but you need to ask for at least some things that you will likely not get. That give you some wiggle room while negotiating. If you start with compromise position you will get very little of what you want and mostly what the other party prefers.

[hackeraccount]

The Senate just passed a bill calling for a trillion dollars worth of spending. It's not like nothing can pass; you just need buy in from 60 Senators. The right legalization bill could do that but it might not have have everything. I'd be happy with removing marijuana from schedule 1, eliminating the penalties for possession and reducing those for selling.

[comrh]

I think putting the opposition party on the record on this issue is part of the strategy because it is seen as broadly popular.

[epicureanideal]

As someone who is not registered to either political party, I don't think the Republicans are really just obstructionists for the sake of it. In many cases they have their own reasons for being against certain laws.

Also, this isn't the 80s-90s. The religious right is much less influential. I could see a bunch of Republicans getting on board with decriminalization if the Democrats phrased it the right way. Unfortunately, they may not want to phrase it the right way and prefer to try to push it through with unfavorable wording just to say the other side is obstructionist.

[monocasa]

The Republicans literally turn their backs on Republican policy positions once the Democrats are for it. The ACA started life in 1994 as Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's HEART Act, including the individual mandate. It then became the crown jewel of Mitt Romney's healthcare reform in MA, with it planned for being pushed as a federal rollout before Obama beat him to the punch and took the wind out of his sails wrt potential election promises.

I personally think the ACA is an awful bill, but I'm pretty alone among Democrats with that opinion.

[jfengel]

You're far from alone. It's widely thought of as a bad compromise, but the only one that could navigate the tortuous straits of needing to get every single Democratic Senator on board -- and skip out on the reconciliation process because one Senator died.

A ton of Democrats would much rather have seen a very different bill, at least a Medicare-for-all plan, but that was simply not on the table. Others would have preferred a bill with a much freer market, but that wasn't possible either unless they got cross-aisle support, which failed to materialize. Nobody thinks of it as their ideal bill.

Most see it as a marginal improvement over the previous law, because it allows more people to have health insurance. That made it a "big [effing] deal" despite nearly universal criticism.

[_jal]

Multiple Republicans in positions to know what their policy is have repeatedly stated that they see obstructionism as their path back to political control.

You don't need to be a cynic, just listen to what they're saying.

[pionar]

I can't disagree with your first sentence more. The current crop of legislators, both D and R, have shown that they're not above opposing something just because the other side came up with it.

And I do think that evangelicals still have quite a stranglehold on the party, but they have more pressing priorities.

[Cipater]

Did you notice that you deny that Republicans are obstructionist but don't extend the same good faith to Democrats?

Going so far as to hypothesize bad faith in the proposing of a bill like this to make the Republicans look bad.

[epicureanideal]

I'm just saying what I'm observing. Maybe my observation is incorrect, but that's how it seems to me at the moment.