• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colorado, Washington Legalize Recreational Marijuana

KevinKohler said:
To me, this is the only real news to come out of this election.
Click to expand...

For me and so many of my young friends (all of whom don't even smoke it) this was also much bigger than the election itself.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
There're many more liters of vin de pays than grand cru.
Click to expand...

True. And weed won't ever be priced like the finest of wines.

My point is an expert grower turns out smoke of clear superiority to what the average person could grow. Superiority that commamds a premium.
 
Wow man Peyton Manning buys twenty-one Poppa Johns pizza restaurants and five days later the state legalized marajauna. How cool is that ma-a-a-a-a-a-a-n?
" Uh, like hello. I'd like to uh order like twenty-two large pizzzzzzazzz like for delivery ma-a-a-n."
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
mr4anarchy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hickenlooper reaching out to feds on Colorado marijuana legalization - The Denver Post
 
DiAnna said:
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. :(
Click to expand...

I think the Medical Marijuana laws led to people wanting to smoke pot getting a note from a doctor, which increased demand on the product, which led to behaviors not sanctioned or intended by the law.
 
DiAnna said:
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. :(
Click to expand...

Colorado also previously enacted medical marijuana but, for some reason, didn't have much of a problem from the feds. Maybe the feds just don't like Cali, eh?
 
Geoist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Likewise, as others mention above, the ‘medical marijuana’ creates a morally corrupting environment. Not from the weed itself but from the wink-and-a-nudge falsehood of a lot (but not all) of its support. It has partially normalized and has been a important PR beachhead for recreational choice but I think it did so with unhealthy side effects.
 
Last edited:
H. Lee White said:
Might be meaningful if it weren't still illegal under federal law.
Click to expand...

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).
 
clownboy said:
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).
Click to expand...
Ashcroft/Gonzales v. Raich (2005) disagrees.
 
Dwight said:
Ashcroft/Gonzales v. Raich (2005) disagrees.
Click to expand...

Only because federal drug law itself and the feds' ability to make federal drug laws unconnected with interstate commerce wasn't at issue.

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.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Only because federal drug law itself and the feds' ability to make federal drug laws unconnected with interstate commerce wasn't at issue.
Click to expand...
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”.
 
clownboy said:
Only because federal drug law itself and the feds' ability to make federal drug laws unconnected with interstate commerce wasn't at issue.
Click to expand...

If you look at the reasoning used, you'll find that it'd apply pretty much equally to the current Colorado state law. Gonzalez was a bad decision, but it does apply here.
 
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.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aderleth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most liberals would say it should be legalized at the federal level, but one of the best ways to force the issue is to get a bunch of States to legalize it. Just like same sex marriage. It should be legalized at the federal level, but in the meantime we’ll take what we can get at the state level.

But if something should be a right, it should be a right regardless of what state, county, city, or neighborhood you live in.
 
Aderleth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Me too, but this is only if the governors of CO and WA have the stones to match their words. As to why not CA or even OR first - what can I say, stoners don't seem to organize well, they shine on voting and are so used to ducking attention, they don't know how to advertise beyond the echo chamber.
 
Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Which is why I think these laws are largely symbolic without tacit agreement from, and co-operation by the Fed government. When it comes right down to it, while I think Gonzales v. Raich comes up against the edge of the envelope, the decision speaks to a very practical matter. It really could not come down another way without overruling existing president unless the State could somehow provide reasonable reassurance that interstate commerce will not occur, which they clearly hadn’t since the facts of the case were that someone (I think Raich himself, IIRC) had engaged in it.

IMO the biggest matter is Federal government delisting MJ from schedule 1, where it has no business being (for any level of government).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom