SkydiveJonathan 0 #1 November 3, 2012 http://www.alternet.org/drugs/why-election-day-marks-beginning-end-marijuana-prohibition In Washington, voters will decide on I-502 , a statewide ballot measure that enacts regulations regarding the state-licensed production and sale of marijuana for adults. The measure also removes criminal penalties for adults who possess up to one ounce of cannabis for personal use. According to a K ING 5/Survey USA poll published late this week, likely voters back the ballot initiative by a margin of 56 percent to 37 percent. In Colorado, voters will decide on Amendment 64 , a Constitutional amendment that allows for those age 21 or older to legally possess up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivate up to six cannabis plants in the privacy of their home. Voters in the state are backing the measure by a margin of 53 percent to 43 percent, according to the latest Public Policy Polling survey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 November 3, 2012 Good luck to them with the feds. They'll need it when they're in the federal pokey... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 November 3, 2012 Back on Alternet, I see. Did you finally realize we all know you are DD and CD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #4 November 4, 2012 QuoteGood luck to them with the feds. They'll need it when they're in the federal pokey... The really interesting conflict w/ federal/state would come in Oregon, if their ballot initiative passes. Their measure foresees the state being the wholesale purchaser and distributor for the entire crop and being one of the primary retail outlets as well. This will put state officials and employees directly in the sights of officials enforcing trafficking statutes. As somebody with significant libertarian leanings I am hoping this could lead to a significant limitation on federal power, at least on marijuana but hopefully on other issues as well."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #5 November 4, 2012 Can we get a mod to check his ip and end this your dd thing. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #6 November 7, 2012 It seems they both passed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/amendment-64-passes-in-co_n_2079899.html http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/washington_measure_502_marijua.html Will this actually make any difference? And how will it work, since as far as I've understood there is no border control between difference states, so any neighboring state pretty much has to legalize since all they'll end up doing by not legalizing is loosing tax revenues to the other state and causing a massive influx of controlled substance.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #7 November 7, 2012 It will likely be a mess if people transport across state lines. There is some provision for states to recognize other states' laws and some provision for ignoring them. And going from one state to another usually invokes Federal jurisdiction. Personally, I don't see why some drugs are treated differently from others. If drugs are going to be legal, let them be legal. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, concaine, etc. are all about the same to me. Just make provisions for not hurting others (drunk driving, etc.) and don't make me pay for your habit (lack of employment, healthcare, etc.). Do whatever you want, just shoulder the consequences of your decisions without me.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #8 November 7, 2012 Colorado has a long history of progressivism when it comes to bucking the Puritans. Exactly 80 years ago, it legalized alcohol—well before the federal government ended prohibition. Amendment 64 wisely leaves the job of devising a regulatory system for legal weed up to the state legislature. It won't be an easy task, but activists think they can pull it off. "We can show the rest of the nation that when you legalize marijuana, the sky does not fall," Angell says. "That is can be safer and at the same time you can collect more tax money." Call it the pot stimulus. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/legalize-marijuana-colorado-washington Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #9 November 7, 2012 The use of the term 'progressive' kind of bugs me. This change in the law is different. It's motion. 'Progressive' implies forward motion. That's a matter of opinion. This is exacerbated by the rest of your statement that implies lots more legislation will be needed to define the legalization of marijuana. I don't consider that forward movement. I don't like MORE verbiage to define what I can and can't do. Sounds like more 'oppressive' to me than 'progressive'. When I need a legal opinion to tell me if growing pot in my backyard is legal or not, I don't consider that 'progressive'. I'm really not trying to quibble. I've just found the term 'progressive' to be annoying lately. It seems to have joined the term 'fair'. They are both being used to describe a particular agenda that is not innately tied to the traditional definitions of the terms. The use of these terms has begun to make my antenna twitch.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #10 November 7, 2012 Quote Will this actually make any difference? And how will it work, since as far as I've understood there is no border control between difference states, so any neighboring state pretty much has to legalize since all they'll end up doing by not legalizing is loosing tax revenues to the other state and causing a massive influx of controlled substance. It is unclear, but one way that states could do it is to only legalize sale to people with an ID for that state. Big federal/state conflict is coming over this issue."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 November 7, 2012 QuoteColorado has a long history of progressivism No kidding. COnsidering my mother is from there and I've spent a great deal of time there I've got a decent idea of it. Colorado, though, also has a less "progressive" history. Google "Amendment 2" and "Romer v. Evans." Then they had Bill Owens as governor. So it's a mixed bag, ain't it? I don't like spin like you made. Colorado has occupied the furthest position in extreme in just the last twenty years. Quote"We can show the rest of the nation that when you legalize marijuana, the sky does not fall, No. But the feds will fall all over you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #12 November 7, 2012 I'm interested if people from Washington or Colorado can add any knowledge of the proposed regulatory scheme. My understanding is that Colorado is now going to the legislature to design a regulatory scheme. I understand Washington proposes a 25% tax at each of three different stages in the process. What can you guys add to that? Will there still be medical marijuana in those states? Will there be state-owned retailers or independents? Will there be required registration of any sort? Interesting to see if the 75% tax in Washington will lead to continuation of a large underground market or not."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 November 7, 2012 QuoteInteresting to see if the 75% tax in Washington will lead to continuation of a large underground market or not. The fact that it's still a federal crime will mean continuation of the black market. See Gonzales v. Raich. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #14 November 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteInteresting to see if the 75% tax in Washington will lead to continuation of a large underground market or not. The fact that it's still a federal crime will mean continuation of the black market. See Gonzales v. Raich. I am 100% sure some black market will continue. The ballot measure I was most interested in was Oregon's, as it pictured the state as the wholesaler/distributor of the entire crop, which would have brought the federal-state conflict to a head quickly, I imagine. I suspect Colorado/Washington will still push it in that direction. I do think one of the benefits of legalizing recreational use is that users will not have to show an ID card and be on some sort of registry somewhere (hopefully). They can just go in the store, pay cash, have no paper record. If somehow wickard v. filburn could be overturned this would all be much simpler."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 November 7, 2012 QuoteOregon's, as it pictured the state as the wholesaler/distributor of the entire crop, which would have brought the federal-state conflict to a head quickly, I imagine Unless the SCOTUS overturns loads of federal precedent, Oregon will be smacked down like it was in Gonzales v. Oregon. Thanks to "progressive" thinking, there is no such thing as conduct that the federal government cannot regulate as "commerce." And since the federal government is supreme to the states, the states will just have to suck it up. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #16 November 7, 2012 Quote Unless the SCOTUS overturns loads of federal precedent, Oregon will be smacked down like it was in Gonzales v. Oregon. Thanks to "progressive" thinking, there is no such thing as conduct that the federal government cannot regulate as "commerce." And since the federal government is supreme to the states, the states will just have to suck it up. Oregon's ballot measure was defeated, unfortunately. There is a whole lot of federal precedent that needs to be overturned and a whole bunch of 10th Amendment balance that needs to be restored."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 November 7, 2012 QuoteThere is a whole lot of federal precedent that needs to be overturned and a whole bunch of 10th Amendment balance that needs to be restored. Read Clarence Thomas' dissents in both Raich and Oregon. To me, he nailed it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #18 November 7, 2012 Quote Read Clarence Thomas' dissents in both Raich and Oregon. To me, he nailed it. I've read the dissent in Raich. It was brilliant. Which oregon case? Is that the Native American/peyote case?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #19 November 7, 2012 And the day after CO approved Amendment 64: http://303cycling.com/Colorado-to-begin-having-drug-testing-on-cyclists Coincidence? "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 November 7, 2012 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-623.ZD1.html It was Thomas calling bullshit on the Majority. Quote I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure....But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #21 November 7, 2012 Quote Quote Oregon's, as it pictured the state as the wholesaler/distributor of the entire crop, which would have brought the federal-state conflict to a head quickly, I imagine Unless the SCOTUS overturns loads of federal precedent, Oregon will be smacked down like it was in Gonzales v. Oregon. Thanks to "progressive" thinking, there is no such thing as conduct that the federal government cannot regulate as "commerce." And since the federal government is supreme to the states, the states will just have to suck it up. Unless states start barring DEA agents and resisting federal control. The ones with the least debt may be first but states with loads of federal debt may see it as an escape. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony if the drug war actually led to war. Except for slavery, maybe the confederates were onto something. Puerto Rico wants to become a state, so if we lost one we'd still have 50. Virgin Islands or Canada could take up the slots if more left.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #22 November 7, 2012 Quote Unless states start barring DEA agents and resisting federal control. The ones with the least debt may be first but states with loads of federal debt may see it as an escape. A first step would not even be actively resisting but refusing to aid. For instance in this raid on a Fresno farm the local law enforcement cooperated with the Feds. They need to stop doing that."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #23 November 7, 2012 QuoteGood luck to them with the feds. They'll need it when they're in the federal pokey... Who knows, maybe Obama's ideas on marijuana prohibition are about to rapidly "evolve." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveJonathan 0 #24 November 8, 2012 Martin Lee, journalist and author of the new book Smoke Signals: A Social History Of Marijuana—Medical, Recreational, And Scientific , says the size of the operation and will behind it are exactly why local forces could be the biggest threat to legalization. “There are various ways that the federal government could punish these states for straying from the drug war party line, but it may not come to that. Federal law enforcement can't impose it's will that easily, given the limited number of DEA agents on the ground,” Lee told AlterNet, “The biggest obstacle in Washington state might be local law enforcement officers intent on targeting drivers under 21. The way Amendment 64 was written, it may allow, if not encourage, anti-marijuana law enforcement in Washington to harass young drivers and have them tested to determine if THC metabolites are in their body, indicating prior use of marijuana. If the past with respect to medical marijuana in California is a reliable prologue, police, when given an inch, are apt to take a mile.” Still, Lee has hope that popular opinion may overcome government will. “It's also possible that the federal government may throw in the towel on this one and allow this laboratory experiment in democracy to proceed without interference. One way or another, marijuana is here to stay,” Lee said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #25 November 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteGood luck to them with the feds. They'll need it when they're in the federal pokey... Who knows, maybe Obama's ideas on marijuana prohibition are about to rapidly "evolve." He was reportedly a dope fiend at one time. What would his views evolve into? Subsidized marijuana crops?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
