To me, this is the only real news to come out of this election.
I am very happy about this. They legalized it not just for medicinal purposes, but also for recreational purposes. And not only did they legalize possession, but they also legalized cultivation and distribution. They have torn a huge hole into the war on drugs, and it should substantially reduce drug violence all around the country.
There're many more liters of vin de pays than grand cru.
I am very happy about this. They legalized it not just for medicinal purposes, but also for recreational purposes. And not only did they legalize possession, but they also legalized cultivation and distribution. They have torn a huge hole into the war on drugs, and it should substantially reduce drug violence all around the country.
At the time, Medical marijuana laws seemed like the compassionate compromise, but they ended up spawning this cottage industry of doctors who will write notes and distributors -- better to make it legal for personal use and regulate like alcohol. As I researched marijuana addiction and negative effects, they are relatively moderate compared to drinking and smoking. And the addiction doesn't seem to be chemical like alcohol, tobacco, and opiates.
Has anyone heard how initial talks with Colorado and DEA / DOJ have been going?
I hope they have better luck than California. We passed medical marijuana years ago, but that didn't stop the feds from swooping in, closing down legitimately licensed medical MJ stores, confiscating the stock and fining the owners out of existance.
I hope they have better luck than California. We passed medical marijuana years ago, but that didn't stop the feds from swooping in, closing down legitimately licensed medical MJ stores, confiscating the stock and fining the owners out of existance.
Not so fast here in Washington:
Marijuana: For many employees, it's legalization in name only
Marijuana: For many employees, it's legalization in name only » Kitsap Sun
This is the core of my concern around decriminalization of possession (which is different than legalization) without changes in legality of the supply chain. EDIT: And this, rightly so, freaks the crap out of Mexico.And that is the critical part in this. I don't like the idea of legalizing possession WITHOUT legalizing its cultivation and distribution. That would just mean money continuing to go in the pockets of murderers.
Might be meaningful if it weren't still illegal under federal law.
Ashcroft/Gonzales v. Raich (2005) disagrees.Yeah, but that's only where federal law is applicable. They should have no say here, it's purely a state matter (unless they start shipping it across state lines).
Ashcroft/Gonzales v. Raich (2005) disagrees.
Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.
You really think they could have made any headway, to pick up extra votes, with those approaches? There is a very good reason why Raich’s team didn’t add those into their argument, and that reason rhymes with “snow hope in hell”.Only because federal drug law itself and the feds' ability to make federal drug laws unconnected with interstate commerce wasn't at issue.
Only because federal drug law itself and the feds' ability to make federal drug laws unconnected with interstate commerce wasn't at issue.
Meh, I prefer the opposition to the feds on this one to be done from the ground up anyway. Arpaio style. I'd love to see the governors involved order their state's law enforcement not to cooperate or lend any resources to the DEA for pot-related matters. When the DEA comes to town we don't have to give them information, backup or even jail space for holding.
That's true enough (to a point), but it ain't gonna do a bit of good for the people having their homes raided by the FBI and subsequently being sent to federal prison.
That's going to be a part of the battle. But that sort of thing is a double edge sword. It becomes part of the YouTube media nation and the FBI is very shy about that.
I see maybe as many as five more states going medical in 2014, and maybe Oregon joining the mix if the WA and CO governments stand their ground. Maybe even California.
It amuses me that liberals want to create this all powerful federal system that strips states and citizens of any authority whatsoever to make decisions for themselves and then play the victim of the federal government when it comes to pot. Nothing like weed to turn liberals into libertarians.
I certainly hope you're right. Frankly I'm somewhat appalled that this didn't happen in California first. Marijuana use isn't even remotely contentious in any of the urban environments (where the bulk of the state population lives). I'd be surprised if it's contentious in the non-urban environments, but I haven't really spent a lot of time outside of the major cities, so I can't be sure.
Some of us live in the realm of both, there isn’t any “turning into” to happen. However I agree that switching views on the Constitutional relationship of Fed & State powers merely per issue, basing where you stand merely on where you sit and only voicing concern over “the 10th” to your separate agenda, blatantly delusive.It amuses me that liberals want to create this all powerful federal system that strips states and citizens of any authority whatsoever to make decisions for themselves and then play the victim of the federal government when it comes to pot. Nothing like weed to turn liberals into libertarians.