Seriously?!?!
Please tell me you’re joking. Can DC make it illegal (if it’s not already) to smoke in a workplace?
Congress has the power to overrule any law DC passes.
(That’s one thing that most people forget when considering DC residents’ lack of voting representation in Congress.)
1 Like
I believe the new smoking rules only apply to representative’s offices.
Fun fact: The Executive branch gets to decide that it is illegal to smoke on Federal property, so long as said Federal property is not the Capitol building.
1 Like
The fact that DC has any residents is stupid, IMO. Give the residential parts (except maybe the WH) back to Maryland and leave “DC” just the areas that are directly related to government.
I’m sure this discussion has been had many times though.
3 Likes
I like the idea…but only if the 23rd Amendment is repealed as part of the transition.
1 Like
That’s a reasonable condition.
1 Like
Yeah, I knew that, but would they?
I think Congress exempted themselves from OSHA regulations a while back too, right?
Trying to think of creative ways around the lunacy.
It would probably result in an additional house member from MD and VA.
Why VA? Their portion of what was originally DC was returned to them before the Civil War. What remains in DC exclusively came from MD.
But yeah, MD would certainly gain a representative… possibly two. If they got DC back it probably makes sense to allocate DC a representative immediately (just upgrade their non-voting rep to a voting one) and then let it shake out in the next census reapportionment… similar to when we add new states.
2 Likes
I remember hearing (years ago, back in the pre-Uber days), Congress obliged the DC government to impose a set of rules on taxi fares, where fares were based on the number of zones the ride traversed, with the zones drawn (allegedly) to suit the interests of Congress.
There is no question in my mind that Congress would overrule DC laws/regs if/when it suits them and if/when they can be bothered to take notice.
I’ll admit, however, my mind still struggles with how logic needs to be tortured to reconcile the federal attitudes on cannabis and DC’s local decriminalization.
1 Like
By doing nothing on either side they are not sticking their necks out.
1 Like
I really believe that most Congress Critters don’t actually object to at least medical marijuana… they just don’t want to say goodbye to funding from the drug companies.
Opposing DC’s decriminalization could subject them to attacks during their re-election campaign and loss of votes from a public who is pro-medical-marijuana and at worst largely indifferent to recreational marijuana.
But promoting any federal changes risks those fat checks from big Pharma that they need to get re-elected (by the population that wants at least medical marijuana).
99% of what happens (and doesn’t happen) on Capitol Hill is done with the goal of returning to Capitol Hill.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure the pharmaceutical industry would continue to invest in lawmakers if cannabis was legalized. I think it’s more that no one wants to be “pro recreational drug”.
1 Like
I agree. Most people who really, really want it legalized probably are just buying it illegally, or live in a state where it’s legalized, or are buying the “grey area” hemp/cannabis legal products. (This leaves out the companies that want it legal but heavily regulated so they can make money.)
I think it’s telling that the biggest movement towards federal legalization happened because mitch mcconnell was worried about losing his primary, and changed the farm bill to help special interests in his home state.
I don’t think that practice will stop.
But if you and I are running against each other for the same Congressional seat and you are pro-decriminalization and I am anti… I know who is likely to get more donations from Big Pharma.
(Note: I think in reality we are both pro-decriminalization, and I’m not remotely considering running for Congress… just a hypothetical.)
Really? I’m surprised they even care. It’s not like cannabis is cutting that deeply into pharmaceutical profits. Are they anti tobacco? Anti booze? Anti vitamin? I’ve never before heard that big pharma is out to get cannabis except from conspiracy theorists.
2 Likes
Uh, that’s because it’s still illegal… nationwide.
or…it’s a conspiracy theory. Not to mention it is legal is half the states. So if it’s cutting into profits big pharma already lost.
Cannabis isn’t some miracle drug that people proclaim it to be, and it doesn’t even target the most expensive diseases. This whole big pharma argument is pure fantasy.
2 Likes
Is WebMD a conspiracy theorist?
Imagine the day when you call your doctor with some back pain and they write you an Rx for some chewables which cost $10 and your insurance will pay for. That’s going to massively cut into pharma’s profits.
Last time I went to the doctor for back pain they gave me an injection. My co-pay on the injection was $150, which isn’t counting the portion that insurance paid for which I no longer remember. Maybe $500 or $600???
Even if big Pharma starts manufacturing cannabis products … a share of $10 is a lot less than all of $500.
To be clear… the billions WebMD is talking about still assumes it’s illegal at the federal level. That’s just revenue lost from people saying “nah, I don’t need to see a doctor, I’ll just self medicate with cannabis.”
When the doctors are writing prescriptions that insurance covers it will be even more. Some people are still afraid of cannabis products.