The problem is that Söder and his CSU are obviously following the old Nixon attitude of targetting cannabis to hit left-wings [1]:
> You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.
And then you got the absolute deranged ones, like Marlene "Cannabis ist verboten, weil es eine illegale Droge ist" (cannabis is banned because it's an illegal drug") Mortler or Daniela "Cannabis ist kein Brokkoli" (cannabis ain't broccoli) Ludwig [2]. Imagine, these two utter failures were the official drug policy heads.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-...
[2] https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/legalisierung-von-c...
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.
They can blame Trump, not go after Hemp farmers.
They don't. Drunkenness just kind of nullifies pot. I might have a beer when I'm stoned, but only a very tasty one, and only one.
I think that extremely light pot smoking is killing alcohol sales. The tiniest bit of pot is just as pleasing as a mild alcohol buzz, and an alcohol buzz kills the effect of pot. I know I got in the habit for a while of smoking a tiny, tiny bit when I got home, with the effect long gone before I went to sleep. Back in the day (and sometimes still), I would have had one beer, or one glass of wine.
It has accomplished everything its proponents hoped for and much more.
"You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities”
- John Ehrlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs under Richard Nixon
McConnel sponsored the original bill. Kentucky is historically one of the largest hemp producing states. The whole thing just shows how inept the entire administration is. DJT 45 signed the original law himself, after it was drafted and passed by his Republican house and senate.
I think I am more interested in the mechanics of how this happens. Why do we need to attach riders / sneak in legislation? What changes could we make to the constitution to avoid this?
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 Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus sued, arguing that the omnibus bill, whose original title is over 300 words before it keels over in repetition of the word “subdivision,” violated the single-subject rule.
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2025/09/the-minnes...
The 10th amendment exists for a reason. The system wasn't intended for congress to even control something like this in the first place.
Maybe we just need to change the constitution--which I know is technically possible but im practically it's frozen. It's like a legacy API no one wants to touch.
Allowing several issues to be passed as a singular unit provides opportunity for an agreement to be made about several issues at once. Think of it like a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Or if that's really impossible, you could compromise on separate bills. If people ever break promises, that's a reason not to trust them in the future and it's a lot more clear to the public about who voted which way rather than having a rider which no one really understands where it came from.
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.”
But if it works, then maybe it's what we need.
> But the provision that was inserted into the government funding bill makes illegal any hemp product that contains more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container.
Now the online "hemp" industry will shift to selling gummies in "containers" that really equate to individually wrapped. You'll get bulk discounts for buying groups of 30 "containers", but what you get will feel like Japanese-style individual wrapping.
BTW: This was kinda-sorta what I encountered when I bought gummies in Ontario, Canada. The gummy was in a single "container" and had roughly ~0.4 mg THC.
taylodl•1h ago
blitzar•1h ago
munk-a•54m ago
jrs235•47m ago