The House just voted to decriminalize marijuana

[View in browser]( [Mother Jones Daily Newsletter]( December 4, 2020 Every once in a while, the House passes a bill that would never in a million years be approved by a Republican-controlled Senate. There was a bill to raise the federal [minimum wage]( to $15. There was another that would mandate [universal background checks]( on gun sales. And yet [another]( "to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation"—real controversial stuff. Today, the House added a new bit of progressive legislation to the list: a bill that would [decriminalize marijuana]( and expunge nonviolent weed-related convictions, which disproportionately affect people of color. The legislation comes after five states approved marijuana reforms on Election Day, as my colleague Jackie Flynn Mogensen [reported]( last month. Thirty-six states have now legalized medical marijuana, and 15 have approved recreational weed. The House bill may not become law, but it's a big step in altering the public image of marijuana from a [dangerous, addictive substance]( to a medicinal herb that's [safer than alcohol](. No matter how you feel about the drug itself, the potential criminal justice benefits of legalization are undeniable: Even though people use and sell weed at similar rates across races, Black people are nearly four times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession, according to the [ACLU](. The House bill would try to rectify this inequality by creating grants to provide people convicted of marijuana-related offenses with job training, legal aid, and substance abuse treatment. It would also offer funding to low-income and nonwhite business owners in the marijuana sector. Not a bad place to start! —Abigail Weinberg [Gundry MD]( [Top Story] [Top Story]( [The Freakout About Giving COVID Vaccines to Prisoners Has Already Begun]( Jails and prisons are virus hot spots, but politics could slow efforts to inoculate their residents. BY MADISON PAULY [Trending] [274,000 dead, and Trump obsesses over election conspiracy theories. Where’s the outrage?]( BY DAVID CORN ["The virus isn't noctural": The folly of COVID curfews]( BY FERNANDA ECHAVARRI [Indian Country has entered a devastating new phase of the pandemic]( BY DELILAH FRIEDLER [The change we need: Stop whining about "defund the police" activists.]( BY NATHALIE BAPTISTE [Gundry MD]( [Weekend Reads] [Special Feature]( [What’s Next for the #Resistance Now That They Don’t Have Trump to Kick Around Anymore?]( The president propelled many women to join the liberal resistance. Now they’re determined to remake their communities. BY KARA VOGHT [Fiercely Independent] Support from readers allows Mother Jones to do journalism that doesn't just follow the pack. [Donate]( [Recharge] SOME GOOD NEWS, FOR ONCE [From Our Archives, an Incredible Cover You'll Love or Hate]( In July 1979, this magazine ran a [series of articles]( about the United States’ plans for a nuke war. As usual in a Mother Jones piece of the era, writers dove into wonky policy while finding a straightforward and biting tone to match the horror of what they were reporting. It was solid investigative work. And it has some fun stuff in there about how moving to the suburbs meant we might not have anywhere to hide if bombs dropped. But you don’t really need to know all that. I’m talking to you about this issue because…check out the [cover](! It’s a formal portrait of military leaders with the headline “Meet America’s Leading Terrorists.” I don’t have a ton to say here. It seems that, at the time, we cared a lot more about nukes than now. Another issue that year had President Jimmy Carter on the cover, as we prodded his administration’s nuclear policy. But, at least until something happens like [oh I don’t know a war with Iran](, our nuclear policies are not top of mind for anyone in the United States at the moment. I dearly hope that does not change. However, the other article mentioned on the cover—“Marriage Dissected”—will perhaps be more directly relevant to your daily lives. It’s a doctor arguing, basically, that “marriage has not been healthy for women.” One of its standout lines is quite the turn of phrase: “Marriage seems to be good for men and bad for women. The obvious public health conclusion from this is that men should marry other men and leave women alone.” —Jacob Rosenberg Did you enjoy this newsletter? Help us out by [forwarding]( it to a friend or sharing it on [Facebook]( and [Twitter](. [Mother Jones]( [Donate]( [Subscribe]( This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To change the messages you receive from us, you can [edit your email preferences]( or [unsubscribe from all mailings.]( For advertising opportunities see our online [media kit.]( Were you forwarded this email? [Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today.]( [www.MotherJones.com]( PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755