Why didn't Democrats legalize marijuana federally when they controlled Congress?

Question

A notable majority of the US is supportive of legalizing marijuana, with Democrats having a much higher level of support, and Biden's own platform including legalizing it. Given the overwhelming support for it among Democrats and that the Democrats had full control of the government, I'm kind of surprised they didn't force through a bill legalizing marijuana. It doesn't even seem something Republicans would have fought as hard over given almost half of Republicans want it legalized too, seems they would have bigger fish to fry.

I know I've heard that they're trying to rush something through before they lose the house, but why was it put off so long? Is there a reason this wasn't an easy no-brainer legal change for Democrats when they took control?

Answer 1

It would have required a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate (i.e. 60 votes) in addition to a House majority since it was not a fiscal bill or a Presidential nomination to ratify. They also might not have gotten every single Democratic vote in the Senate. So, they didn't have the votes to pass it.

Even Republicans who wouldn't really seriously have opposed the bill didn't want to give Biden any legislative accomplishments before the election, which is why the Respect for Marriage Act only passed after the election.

Also, while Biden eventually came around to making some bold moves on marijuana with his pardon power and prosecutorial discretion, he is himself a one time stalwart of the drug war and probably doesn't see it as a personal priority upon which he wants to spend scarce political capital.

Answer 2

I am going to go with Ohwilleke's answer and elaborate a bit on the "political capital" part of it.

• Few people are going to consider marijuana legalization a hot button "vote for" issue. Even regular recreational users are going to be considering a number of other issues when deciding whom to vote for/against. Marijuana is going to be one of a number of factors in deciding votes.

• On the other hand, you will likely find a small minority of voters for whom legalization is a hot button "vote against" issue and would cause people to vote against their usual party: "OMG, they're the druggy party!"

So as a representative for states where there isn't broad support, there is little benefit to sticking your neck out. Yes, overall the population may think legalization would be a good thing. That's where referendums can be helpful - they don't require as much ownership by politicians in general and they are designed for single-issue voting. They compartmentalize.

But to sponsor change at the federal level, when Biden's own background is more on the anti-MJ than pro side? Probably not worth risking votes in battleground states.

Take a look at a map showing recreational vs medical-only vs never states. Some of the medical-only are going to be those battleground states (most of the nevers are firmly Republican so matter less).

Answer 3

It's also an issue the majority party is such because they gained favor in constituencies that are prone to political swing and that it might not be in the interest of members of the majority party to vote with their party because their future in this job is contingent on a constituency that may not be reliable for either party and will go back to the opposition's party if you vote in a way that is not popular with the constituents in a majority. In addition, the rules of both houses often require more than simple majorities for non-budgetary laws.

For these reasons, it is easier to say "No" on a bill than it is to say "Yes", because the yes will require at least 51% (218 in the House, 51 in the Senate) to aggree to every single provision in the law, while a "No" requires 51% or more to have a problem with the law (consider that the minority will oppose because it goes to far, but the majority can contain a moderate who knows their constituency will also agree the law goes to far, but can contain a hardliner who believes the bill doesn't go far enough!). To give a great example, Abraham Lincoln's legislative agenda was equally frustrated by the Radical Republicans who wanted Lincoln to take a tougher stance on abolishing slavery as much as opposition from Democrats who counted Lincoln as a Radicle Republican because he was a Republican (And keep in mind, there were still states in the Union that permitted slavery at the time.).

Lincoln's successor, Andrew Jackson, was considered so soft on handling the reconstruction era south, that the Radical Republicans nearly voted to convict him on Impeachment (the deciding vote sparing Jackson was cast by a Democrat).

The U.S. political parties exercise very little ability to actually enforce their members in office to vote party line on an issue, and sometimes a bill never makes it to committee before it's clear that the votes simply are not there. And given how the balance of power can shift every two years, it's not worth it even if the party that proposed it is in control of the legislature.

To top it off, the some bills might not make it out because while there are enough votes to pass the measure, there are not enough votes to override the President's veto.