They should have gifted trump a golden spliff - he would have given them subsidies and government contracts instead.

A similar thing can be observed in Germany: the most anti-cannabis state is the state that produces the most alcohol (Bavaria)

I thought that was because of the tit-for-tat with Canada.

I'd think a joint and a glass of bourbon would go hand-in-hand.

Personally, I don't drink or smoke, but I think the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure that has been, for the most part, a footgun.

> Why do we need to attach riders / sneak in legislation?

Because they can't agree on anything normally, so the only way to make changes is to shove them in with things they must agree on.

> What changes could we make to the constitution to avoid this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule

Multiple states already have this.

The federal government has grown immensely since the early 20th century due to the interpretations of the commerce clause allowing more and more federal legislation and rules to broadly be applied to essentially override state legislation.

The 10th amendment exists for a reason. The system wasn't intended for congress to even control something like this in the first place.

Playing devil's advocate, the positive of allowing legislation to include unrelated riders is that it promotes compromise. And compromise is how a healthy democracy should operate.

Single subject bill amendment. Several states require single subject bills in State legislature. The same must be required at the federal level. The pushback has always been "then nothing will get done". From where I am standing that would be a good thing. No more sneaking shit in at the last minute. Vote on every single issue. People will still try to sneak stuff in. I remember seeing a video of a Minnesota legislator admonishing his colleges for trying to do omnibus bills after they passed a single subject amendment.

To get such an amendment passed it would have to come from the States. Nobody that is already in congress is going to vote for this. It is a huge restriction on their power to spend our money.

Here is Alaska's single bill requirement: The Alaska Constitution Art II, Section 13. Form of Bills reads: Every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing laws. Bills for appropriations shall be confined to appropriations. The subject of each bill shall be expressed in the title. The enacting clause shall be: “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Alaska.”

Well at least we can live in the comfort of knowing that everyone who voted on the bill is aware of everything in it and has definitely read beyond the cover page.