|
Tab8715 posted:NY Times Reports anonymous government officials will do something to stop Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana. I am not surprised at all, and would not be surprised if this started the pendulum swinging back the other way. I doubt i will ever see marijuana legal in my lifetime.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Spoondick posted:Facebook lowers worker productivity far more than legal marijuana ever could, therefore facebook should be illegal and facebook users should be thrown in jail. Same with families and school. If I were a manager of a pizza place, those would be the first to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Same with families and school. If I were a manager of a pizza place, those would be the first to go. There's no "I'm having a baby and need a few months off for maternity/paternity leave" in team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Xeom posted:I am not surprised at all, and would not be surprised if this started the pendulum swinging back the other way. I doubt i will ever see marijuana legal in my lifetime. I think if the federal government steps in and stops a state from doing what it's citizens lawfully voted to do, there will be serious trouble. Has the government ever done that before - forced a state to follow its laws after the state as a whole voted not to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I think if the federal government steps in and stops a state from doing what it's citizens lawfully voted to do, there will be serious trouble. Has the government ever done that before - forced a state to follow its laws after the state as a whole voted not to? You can't be serious. Yes, it's happened. i say swears online fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
It's a tricky situation because the Federal Government cannot simply choose what laws it wishes to follow, nor say to states "Oh, you can ignore Federal Law in this case..." So there's real Constitutional issues here. That said, the Feds can say "enforcement of these Federal laws are not our top priority..." and de-emphasize criminal prosecutions, for example. The real fix will only come at the Federal level, either with reclassifying marijuana to a different drug schedule, or an explicit law allowing for states to set marijuana laws within their borders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I think if the federal government steps in and stops a state from doing what it's citizens lawfully voted to do, there will be serious trouble. Has the government ever done that before - forced a state to follow its laws after the state as a whole voted not to? Yes, several times. It would be dangerous for them not to even. If the federal government just goes "herp derp well the weed is fine if the states don't want to follow federal law" that opens up the entire nest of right wing fantasies not to follow federal law for things like medicare and education. You're essentially validating the entire right wing states rights fantasy argument. The federal government trumping the states has long been the lynchpin of liberal legislation, if it refuses to continue this and lets the weed issue go unchecked it's indulging in the fantasy of the right wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:I assure you that the sale of alcohol is legal in the red Kentucky counties in extreme west Kentucky. It's on Wikipedia.. if you know it to not be accurate for a county, then change its color yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
SilentD posted:The federal government trumping the states has long been the lynchpin of liberal legislation, if it refuses to continue this and lets the weed issue go unchecked it's indulging in the fantasy of the right wing. Even if one is to assume this is true, how do you propose they go about "checking the weed issue"? Where are these armies of federal drug enforcement agents that are going to go door-to-door around two large states? And is that enough manpower to expand the operation when other large states follow suit over the next few years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Yes, several times. It would be dangerous for them not to even. If the federal government just goes "herp derp well the weed is fine if the states don't want to follow federal law" that opens up the entire nest of right wing fantasies not to follow federal law for things like medicare and education. You're essentially validating the entire right wing states rights fantasy argument. Except in this case, the feds have a solid legal excuse to refrain from interfering. The states themselves aren't actually doing anything in violation of federal law - merely refusing to prosecute people doing something illegal at the federal level. If I'm not mistaken, the courts have actually ruled that it's unconstitutional to force states to enforce federal laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Even if one is to assume this is true, how do you propose they go about "checking the weed issue"? Where are these armies of federal drug enforcement agents that are going to go door-to-door around two large states? And is that enough manpower to expand the operation when other large states follow suit over the next few years? They can still crack down and arrest people. They could also pull what they did with alcohol. The entire "your drinking age is 21 and you'll like it" is enforced because if you don't do that the feds yank your highway money and you're straight up hosed. They have a way to jerk the chain, it's simple. State- "Pots legal suck it feds" Feds_ "that's great and all but we are still going to arrest people, by the way, your highway funding and other stuff, it's gone now. Congrats you're bankrupt, have fun on your journey to Mad Max" We need decriminalization at the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
SilentD posted:They can still crack down and arrest people. They could also pull what they did with alcohol. The entire "your drinking age is 21 and you'll like it" is enforced because if you don't do that the feds yank your highway money and you're straight up hosed. ... I obviously agree with the latter point. But I don't see this Congress making a legislative move designed to push back against cannabis, because it's a battle the Hill intelligentsia know would be lost over the long-term. Not to mention it would start a states-rights debate across the nation, and neither party wants that. It was a different political world when Congress pulled the drinking-age shenanigans; I'm not sure they can win that kind of fight anymore. NathanScottPhillips posted:The people we need to worry about are the US Marshals Service, these guys run their entire show off asset forfeiture and marijuana is highly profitable for them. They aren't under the direct authority of Eric Holder which is why they went in and cracked down in '09 when Obama said he wouldn't pursue MMJ. An excellent distinction to be remembered. mdemone fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
The Feds have already lost. 18 states have medical marijuana laws = 18 states are in flagrant violation of the CSA. Enforcement and punishment on the part of the DEA has been a big game of whack-a-mole. I spoke with a lawyer here in Colorado who represents several MMJ dispensaries, and he says that we don't have to worry about Obama or the DEA as a whole. The people we need to worry about are the US Marshals Service, these guys run their entire show off asset forfeiture and marijuana is highly profitable for them. They aren't under the direct authority of Eric Holder which is why they went in and cracked down in '09 when Obama said he wouldn't pursue MMJ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
SilentD posted:They can still crack down and arrest people. They could also pull what they did with alcohol. The entire "your drinking age is 21 and you'll like it" is enforced because if you don't do that the feds yank your highway money and you're straight up hosed. They have a way to jerk the chain, it's simple. I understand that that's what happened with the legal drinking age, but don't you think that this might play out differently in the age of communication over the internet? At this point I would think that if the feds start freezing out the states' highway funds (or something similar), people would be made more aware of the situation and there would be more public outrage about the feds clearly going against the will of the people. Or maybe I'm just hopelessly naive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I agree with the latter point. But I don't see this Congress making a legislative move designed to push back against cannabis, because it's a battle the Hill intelligentsia know would be lost over the long-term. Not to mention it would start a states-rights debate across the nation, and neither party wants that. It was a different political world when Congress pulled the drinking-age shenanigans; I'm not sure they can win that kind of fight anymore. Most people in the federal government that are not extreme conservatives would like to keep the federal government over the state. Those who don't are 10th amendment crack pots that lean super libertarian. It's especially bad for liberals, since the same logic of states rights here is what Republicans keep talking about saying they don't have to follow the civil rights act or participate in medicare. That's fine if liberals want to open that door, but they are also opening the door to end a who lot of programs they love and won't have a soap box to stand on anymore (then again, if it really savages progressives I could get down for this confrontation just to drink their sweet tears and laugh my rear end off... come to think of it). Really the only way out is federal level decrminalization/legalization, which would still end up handing it off to the states to do what they want, but would prevent any sort of states rights confrontation that could spill over into other areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
SilentD posted:They can still crack down and arrest people. They could also pull what they did with alcohol. The entire "your drinking age is 21 and you'll like it" is enforced because if you don't do that the feds yank your highway money and you're straight up hosed. They have a way to jerk the chain, it's simple. Number of DEA agents responsible for enforcement nationwide: 5500. Number of members of the Denver Police Department: 1500. The best the DEA can do with its available manpower is "make an example" of a few people and hope it creates a chilling effect. They tried this repeatedly against medical marijuana dispensaries in California and it hasn't worked. I'm skeptical that federal government would try withholding highway funds because of marijuana legalization like they did with drinking age limits. For one, marijuana legalization in WA and CO were just passed with strong voter support, whereas drinking age limits in various states had been written by state legislatures decades before. The federal government attacking marijuana legalization via withholding funds could create serious backlash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:I understand that that's what happened with the legal drinking age, but don't you think that this might play out differently in the age of communication over the internet? At this point I would think that if the feds start freezing out the states' highway funds (or something similar), people would be made more aware of the situation and there would be more public outrage about the feds clearly going against the will of the people. See I don't think they'd cut us off because in this day and age its not like we're actually maintaining our highways anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Has anyone else seen this yet?: New England Lawmakers Preparing State Marijuana Legalization Push Huffington Post posted:State lawmakers across New England are preparing legislation to legalize marijuana for recreational use, building on recent victories for the movement in Colorado and Washington last week. The War is crumbling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Interestingly, there's an argument to be made that the DEA is overstepping their authority in the first place by keeping a substance on Schedule I when states have found that there is a medical usage: http://newamsterdampsychedeliclaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/madmen-rule-you.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Really the only way out is federal level decrminalization/legalization, which would still end up handing it off to the states to do what they want, but would prevent any sort of states rights confrontation that could spill over into other areas. It's true that the reasonable endgame is de-scheduling of cannabis from the CSA, given that there is significant state-law precedent in various places. But so many states will have legalized by the time that becomes politically possible at the federal level, that it will be seen as tilting as windmills. I'm just not sure the political will exists among anyone right now to make this an issue when it's so very clear what the general direction of voter sentiment is taking. Chitin posted:Interestingly, there's an argument to be made that the DEA is overstepping their authority in the first place by keeping a substance on Schedule I when states have found that there is a medical usage: http://newamsterdampsychedeliclaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/madmen-rule-you.html The federal government also holds a patent on cannabis as an antioxidant and neuroprotectant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
To be fair this will be like the fourth or fifth year MPP will propose this bill in Rhode Island. Their chances are a bit better every year, but don't read too much into the fact that the bill is introduced. I'll start getting optimist when the powers that be allow it to come to a vote. Some of the legislature takes the concerns of law enforcement seriously, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I spoke with a lawyer here in Colorado who represents several MMJ dispensaries, and he says that we don't have to worry about Obama or the DEA as a whole. The people we need to worry about are the US Marshals Service, these guys run their entire show off asset forfeiture and marijuana is highly profitable for them. They aren't under the direct authority of Eric Holder which is why they went in and cracked down in '09 when Obama said he wouldn't pursue MMJ. Since WA is going to have state-run marijuana stores, are the US Marshals going to seize Washington State property via asset forfeiture? Would be pretty interesting to see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
SilentD posted:They can still crack down and arrest people. They could also pull what they did with alcohol. The entire "your drinking age is 21 and you'll like it" is enforced because if you don't do that the feds yank your highway money and you're straight up hosed. They have a way to jerk the chain, it's simple. Both the 55 MPH speed limit and drinking age changes were based on Congress passing a rider attached to federal transportation funding. That funding exceeds federal law enforcement funding to states by a factor of 10 if not 100 or more. A couple states fought it (the drinking age) and lost in federal court. The federal govt can set conditions to receive federal $ as long as they are related. I'm not sure such a rider to law enforcement grants would pass today's Congress. On the left, you have an increasing number of Democrats who would either like marijuana legalized or at least CO/WA left alone to see what happens. On the right, you have a "big government bad, states rights good" libertarian streak. Unless the White House got strong support for a rider from both parties' leadership in the House, the vote could fail. Even if it passed, CO and WA would have to change their constitutions (again via ballot issue), complicating how/if they would come into compliance with such a rider. Back in the speed limit and drinking age cases, those things were simply set in state law and didn't require a plebiscite to change. In the meantime, people in CO, at least, would be permitted to grow and smoke their own weed. I have no idea what will happen in regards to legalization in CO and WA. If I had to guess, I think the federal government is going to treat it the same as it's been treating medical marijuana over the next couple years. Once those states issue licenses for stores to sell it, and weed is readily available at the retail level, that approach could change. In the meantime, we're awaiting a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the latest marijuana re-scheduling lawsuit. That was argued in October, so we should see a decision in the next 30-45 days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Number of DEA agents responsible for enforcement nationwide: 5500. Number of members of the Denver Police Department: 1500. The best the DEA can do with its available manpower is "make an example" of a few people and hope it creates a chilling effect. They tried this repeatedly against medical marijuana dispensaries in California and it hasn't worked. Strong voter support doesn't mean much for the actual issue here. Does the federal government want to open the states rights pandoras box? Liberals have always been against this because the vast majority of states rights wants and wishes is a conservative fantasy land. The real issues out there is not who can smoke pot, it's much larger. The states rights canard is the right wing wish list that states can simply disregard various piece of civil rights legislation, not participate in medicare, and can tell the EPA they aren't following their drat rules anymore. For years we've prevented that from happening. But if liberals are perfectly willing to use the same argument for pot legislation than they get what's coming to them when the civil rights act, medicare, and the EPA all get crushed along the same lines, and they'll have only themselves to blame. Honestly using states rights to legalize pot without concern for what else that brings is just as stupid as voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson to legalize pot with no thought as to what else happens. This poo poo doesn't happen in a vacuum, not matter how much you want it to. And it's why the only acceptable solution that doesn't undermine a bunch of other stuff we'd probably want to keep is federal decriminalization or legalization. That still leaves it in the hands of the states for what they want to do, but it removes the chance over a showdown where if the pro pop people win the anti EPA people win as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
SilentD posted:They can still crack down and arrest people. They could also pull what they did with alcohol. The entire "your drinking age is 21 and you'll like it" is enforced because if you don't do that the feds yank your highway money and you're straight up hosed. They have a way to jerk the chain, it's simple. Except if they cut highway funds to Colorado the entire East-West trucking industry dies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Since WA is going to have state-run marijuana stores, are the US Marshals going to seize Washington State property via asset forfeiture? Would be pretty interesting to see. If the WA law is followed through to fruition, I eagerly await the state treasurer being indicted for money laundering. More seriously, if the federal government decides to strictly enforce the CSA, do federal juries in CO and WA simply hang (mistrial due to being unable to reach unanimous guilty verdict) or acquit via nullification?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
EBT posted:Except if they cut highway funds to Colorado the entire East-West trucking industry dies. I'm not saying it would specifically be highway funding, it could be anything. Highway funding is just the most obvious example of chain jerking the federal government does to the states. There are lots of ways for them to screw with them and force them into compliance and the federal government isn't afraid to use them. Though I do find it funny that you guys are advocating the same sort of nonsense that that's argued to justify "the states can just not do what the EPA says, voters want it, states want it, and the tyrannical federal government can suck it, and while we are at what's with the federal government loving around in our schools". I mean sure it's an ideological argument, but it places you square in Ron Paul land, I guess we can start pushing to let the people drink their raw milk now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
EBT posted:Except if they cut highway funds to Colorado the entire East-West trucking industry dies. Without some evidence that marijuana-intoxicated driving is a serious problem (and you'd have to start drawing a lot of blood and testing for that), I'm not sure federal courts would be willing to grant the government the benefit of the doubt that weed prohibition is directly related to transportation funding. Consider medical weed has been legal for like a decade and the feds have treated it largely hands-off. More likely, any federal funds rider denying state funding would probably be limited to law enforcement grants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Strong voter support doesn't mean much for the actual issue here. State's rights explicitly exist per the 10th Amendment. The federal government has explicit authorization to regulate interstate commerce per the Constitution. The federal government has been using the Commerce Clause to strengthen it's regulatory powers over the last century. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not. The federal government doesn't want to have its regulatory powers diminished, so when a situation comes along that has a substantial probability of creating a judgement against their use of the Commerce Clause, they try to duck the fight to avoid setting a precedent that would restrict them elsewhere. That's likely why the federal government isn't going to the mat over medical marijuana and marijuana legalization to defend the CSA, there are far more important issues at stake. If enough states press the issue by legalizing marijuana, the federal government will salvage the CSA and protect its regulatory authority by descheduling marijuana and wash its hands of the whole situation. This is the best path to a rational marijuana policy in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
As naive as it may be, I'd like for everyone to just go "lets chill out and observe how legalizing weed in this way impacts the state for a few years, do some studies, and make a decision then."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Since WA is going to have state-run marijuana stores, are the US Marshals going to seize Washington State property via asset forfeiture? Would be pretty interesting to see. We're not going to have state-run weed stores (although it would have been awesome if we could have done it in the same year as liquor privatization, recycled the existing infrastructure, and kept all the profits). Instead, there will be a licensing system for privately run smoke shops. There are still some federal concerns - there's a remote possibility that the feds could go after the state officials who write and enforce licensing regulations, as part of a massive conspiracy to distribute controlled substances - but realistically that's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:I assure you that the sale of alcohol is legal in the red Kentucky counties in extreme west Kentucky. It does look like some "moist" or LR-100 or whatever counties are marked red instead of yellow. I think yellow is "legal except" and red is "illegal except" on the map. You can cross reference the official wet/dry list with a county map if you really want. Kentucky has some hosed up liquor laws, my home in Lexington is at least pretty sane. No wine in grocery stores is weird though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Democratic Pirate posted:As naive as it may be, I'd like for everyone to just go "lets chill out and observe how legalizing weed in this way impacts the state for a few years, do some studies, and make a decision then." The problem is that such a passive stance would ensure that hundreds of thousands of people would be arrested for it and have their lives ruined by it everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
IMO, the best way forward would be for an early Presidential primary state (looking at you, New Hampshire) to legalize, forcing politicians from both parties to deal with the issue and an electorate that very much wants to keep their poo poo legal every cycle. Much like politicians bend over backwards to support ethanol just to appease Iowa voters, maybe they'd have to do the same for marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
SilentD posted:
Hey you have almost realized the concept of states rights is a tool, and depending on the context it may or may not be the correct tool for the job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Though I do find it funny that you guys are advocating the same sort of nonsense that that's argued to justify "the states can just not do what the EPA says, voters want it, states want it, and the tyrannical federal government can suck it, and while we are at what's with the federal government loving around in our schools". You can start pushing for that, good luck! This idea of yours that "good thing with growing support" will also usher in "dumb poo poo that only crazies want" because of some sort of structural similarity is just dumb as hell. Marijuana legalization is not going to provide cover for the return of racial segregation in Alabama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:You can start pushing for that, good luck! Precedent is a very real thing to consider and why (eg) the Phelps case was decided as it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:You can start pushing for that, good luck! I'm for legalization, not just of pot but of everything. I think the war on drugs is a massive failure that has ruined far too many lives, given for profit prisons far too much money, cost us all far to much money, is unwinnable, causes massive problems for other nations, has eroded our civil liberties, and all in all has been one of the most idiotic and reprehensible ideas this nation ever had. I'd rate it a stupider idea than the war on terror, probably the only thing worse than it has been slavery. However none of this changes that "gently caress federal law states should do what they want" is the same exact loving legal logic the far right claims allows say Texas to throw out the EPA and ignore them, toss out the civil rights act, kick the federal government out of school, leave medicare, and the entire laundry list of far right whack-a-doodle poo poo. So far we've avoided setting that legal precedent. And it's the same legal arguments that state why you cannot just ignore the EPA and toss out the civil rights act as to why the drug war is legal. If you open that pandoras box than you're setting the legal basis for Ron Pauls ultimate Christmas wish list. This is not a road you want to go down. There's a good reason libertarians and conservatives are chomping at the bits to use this to gently caress with the commerce clause and set in motion a new states rights/federalism movement. You want to risk this landing in the Roberts/Alito court? Have fun with that. SilentD fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
It also puts Obama in a very hard predicament - if his administration cracks down on it hard enough, it might be enough to disillusion a lot of young voters, that probably aren't mature enough to understand the why, just the what. Also, doesn't this make the States of Colorado and washington two of the only places in the entire world where you can smoke cannabis legally for recreational purposes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
-e- Misread the quote
Stretch Marx fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 22:12
|
|
