LogFAQs > #953911228

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'm not saying it would pass the next day if we trimmed it down, I'm saying it would be a lot easier to negotiate and swing some votes if there's only one issue at hand. Convincing somebody that "weed should be legal" is a lot easier than convincing someone that "weed should be legal, all previous convictions should be overturned, taxes should be higher to fund community reconstruction, and agencies should be formed to ensure that certain groups of people participate in the marijuana industry."

Do you see how one would be an easier sell than the other? Do you understand where my reasoning is coming from?

Yes but I think it's naive and still grounded in your inability to step outside your own narrow perspective.

For one thing, there are lots of people who are just as or more concerned with overturning old convictions as making sure it's legal going forward. It's easy to intellectualize it when it doesn't affect you, but it's much harder when your family is imprisoned for something people are now telling you is cool.

The "weed should be legal" argument never worked on it's own. The impetus here is clearly to appease the growing marijuana industry, so that they can have access to real financial institutions - though even with that caveat it doesn't seem to be a compelling argument to much of the gop (lots don't live in weed states, or if they do they tightly control the market with state level regulations)

And anyway, if you make weed legal, maybe that takes away all the pressure and pubic support and you never get any retroactivity...

Now maybe this is all wrong. But if you can accept and understand that it's a thing people actually care about rather than just political posturing, maybe you can think of a real solution

---

Trying to dunk since July 2020