Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
whoredog
Apr 10, 2002

It's funny, my girlfriend (32) didn't drink a drop before 2 years ago. Last weekend, at a friends house party, she drank WAY too much and while writing in the depths of being miserable, she wondered how alcohol was legal while weed wasn't. Weed doesn't make you fall down stairs. Weed doesn't make you puke your guts out for an hour. Weed doesn't make you feel like death incarnate the next day. Weed doesn't make you beat your chest in a show of manliness and start fights.

Yet it's illegal, while alcohol is legal and glorified. And if you smoked weed in the past 30 days you will fail new-hire or random drug tests. But you could be a belligerent drunk that beats his wife and kids and have no problems.

Our oligarchy that made it illegal can go suck a black cock.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008

Even if the Feds could still go after people, wouldn't this still be a big positive? Cops in the state wouldn't be arresting people for it. It would require the Feds to do it and they likely wouldn't be interested in busting up someone for having a few joints in his pocket.

Mind you my knowledge of how the two work with each other is limited, but wouldn't this be a net positive?

JollyGreen
Aug 23, 2010

Xeom posted:

You best also believe the SCOTUS will vote against legalization lol.Simply put its way to profitable to keep drugs illegal.

:tinfoil:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but:
a.) The SCOTUS probably wouldn't even want to hear the case.
b.) If they did, they would point out that no matter how rad a eighth of sour diesel smells, federal law still trumps state law. So the federal government is still well within its right to throw the book at every last store, distributor, and farmer that participates (that they feel like prosecuting).
c.) The fed can't force the states to get involved in enforcing their federal laws. But they can play rough and just threaten (or really go ahead and do) to cut funding for highways, infanstructure, new mililitary bases in the state, so on and so forth until the state legislature gets back in line. Thats politics bitch.
d.) Would do nothing of the above, because the medical marijuana program in Cali is a complete joke as is. And they're doing nothing about it. Yes, there are a few cases here where they knock over a dispensery and some guys in black get to go show off their fancy new riot shields. But its really telling that they just don't give a poo poo, because they could put a stop to EVERYTHING if they wanted.

Marijuana is going to be remain schedule one for a long, long time. The US has agreed to international treaties that make weed illegal (I had to look it up). It has nothing to do with 'CORPORATIONS CONTROL EVERYTHING' - its entirely due to the fact that legalization would soak up an enormous amount of political effort and frankly its just much easier to ignore the law than to repeal it.

That's how the Dutch do it at least. And you can go to a coffeeshop there and grab an eight of weed and an eight of shrooms without an issue.

The Maroon Hawk
May 10, 2008

Another Colorado goon checking in, from the Northern part of the state (Greeley, to be specific). I'm pretty optimistic about the amendment's chances of passing; a large number of people I've talked to are fully in favor of it, and that's people of all ages, careers, social classes, and walks of life. Plus, there seems to be a VERY large effort to get us college students registered to vote (at least at my school, dunno about CU or CSU or others but I'd imagine it's the same there) and I think it's a pretty fair assumption that this amendment will find a lot of support in that particular demographic, even among non-smoking students.

Here's what I see happening if it passes: Nothing will change usage-wise. Those who want to smoke are probably already smoking, so although we might see some people try it just because it's legal, I doubt it'll be a big number. Given the DEA's penchant for raiding medical marijuana dispensaries lately, I would expect them to make a show out of carrying out more raids in the first few weeks/months after the measure passes, after which the raids will taper off after the show of force is done. I'd expect that this measure will probably be challenged in court almost immediately, and bounce back and forth in the judicial system all the way to the SCOTUS; in the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised if legalization is in limbo in the meantime, with injunctions and poo poo like that.

As for what happens when it makes it to the Supreme Court? Who knows. We'll see.

One thing to also bear in mind is that the measure only lays the framework for retail marijuana sales, and each municipality has to draw up their own laws and regulations surrounding its sale; we won't see medical dispensaries turning into retail dispensaries overnight, although I would imagine a fair amount of towns here already have a general idea of what they want to do so it may not take long to see these laws being enacted.

The only thing that will change right when it goes into effect (which, from what I understand, is immediately upon the governor declaring that the bill has passed) is that it will be legal for personal possession and consumption in private.

I really think the primary goal of these bills is more to stir the waters and get the country seriously talking about legalization; anybody that wants to smoke already does, especially so in states like CO where it's decriminalized and enforcement is a joke. Here's hoping it works!

Also,

f#a# posted:

and Colorado appears to be doing poo poo right: the first $40 million of the excise tax is required to go towards education,

Almost. The first $40 million must go to the school construction fund to be used to build new schools. I'd much rather have seen it go directly towards the education budget, and maybe we can work to get that changed later if it passes, but for now I'll take $40 million for new schools over having it just tossed into the general fund.

(CO goons, if I'm wrong about anything in this post, feel free to correct me.)

Benagain
Oct 10, 2007

Can you see that I am serious?
Fun Shoe
Hahahaah like the US would ever pay the slighest amount of attention to any international treaty it didn't want to.

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003
I guess from a profit perspective, it's more beneficial to the fed to swoop in and seize everything in the name of federal law than to let a tax trickle into state coffers and somewhat benefit them at some point in the future.

Is there like a P&L report for the DEA or federal enforcement arms? That poo poo would be fun to look over.

OneEightHundred
Feb 28, 2008

Soon, we will be unstoppable!
e: Nevermind, beaten to it.

OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 11, 2012

rscott
Dec 10, 2009

OneEightHundred posted:

They can fire you for eating a Snickers bar if they want to. Product usage isn't a protected status, whether it's legal or not.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect elevating smokers to a protected class. It's illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty.

State Year Code
California 2005 CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6
Colorado 1990 CO REV. STAT. ANN § 24-34-402.5
Connecticut 2003 CT GEN. STAT. ANN. § 31-40s
District of Columbia 1993 D.C. CODE ANN. § 7-1703.3
Illinois 1987 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5
Indiana 2006 IND. CODE §§ 22-5-4-1 et seq.
Kentucky 1994 KY REV. STAT. ANN. § 344.040
Louisiana 1991 LA REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:966
Maine 1991 ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, § 597
Minnesota 1992 MINN. STAT. § 181.938
Mississippi 1994 MISS. CODE ANN. § 71-7-33
Missouri 1992 MO. REV. STAT. § 290.145
Montana 1993 MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314
Nevada 1991 NEV. REV. STAT. § 613.333
New Hampshire 1991 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:37-a
New Jersey 1991 N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:6B-1 et seq.
New Mexico 1991 N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-11-1 et seq.
New York 1992 N.Y. [LABOR] LAW § 201-d
North Carolina 1991 N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-28.2
North Dakota 1993 N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-02.4-01 et seq.
Oklahoma 1991 OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, § 500
Oregon 1989 OR. REV. STAT. §§ 659A.315 & 659A.885
Rhode Island 2005 R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-20.10-14
South Carolina 1991 S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-1-85
South Dakota 1991 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-4-11
Tennessee 1990 TENN. CODE ANN. § 50-1-304
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902
West Virginia 1992 W. VA. CODE § 21-3-19
Wisconsin 1991 WIS. STAT. §§ 111.31 et seq.
Wyoming 1992 WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 27-9-101 et seq.

So yeah, actually it is in a lot of places!

roboshit
Apr 4, 2009

Yeah, if weed smokers aren't a protected class then I wouldn't be too excited about legalization if smoking at home can still impact your professional life. It's disgusting that if I were to get hurt at work tomorrow and try to claim workman's comp then I'd be out of a job but a guy who drinks a handle of Wild Turkey a day and beats the poo poo out of his kids would be fine. Or if I were looking for a new job and I land one at a more conservative-minded place and they go oh look at this loving lazy pothead sorry kid.

Norton Ghostride
Apr 30, 2006

by Y Kant Ozma Post
In most cases you lose your second amendment rights if you smoke weed, too. BATFE Form 4473 http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf is required for all public transfers of firearms and specifically asks if you're addicted to marijuana, and of course answering yes disqualifies you.

In addition to this, states that require pistol purchase or ownership permits will ask about marijuana use as well, same goes for CCWs. Background checks are performed in all states that I know of that require permits, and any possession on your record will disqualify you.

Of course you won't find a single word asking if you're an alcoholic, or if you're going to meander around town drunk with a pistol in your waistband. DUIs on your record? No problem, have an AR-15. And plenty of gun owners do mix alcohol and firearms, from personal experience living in the south.

Whether you agree that people who smoke marijuana should be allowed to own firearms or not, the double standard is easily apparent here. Getting trashed and being irresponsible with firearms is macho and all-American, owning firearms and occasionally kicking back with a joint makes you a criminal and can pretty much destroy your life in the blink of an eye.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

roboshit posted:

Yeah, if weed smokers aren't a protected class then I wouldn't be too excited about legalization if smoking at home can still impact your professional life. It's disgusting that if I were to get hurt at work tomorrow and try to claim workman's comp then I'd be out of a job but a guy who drinks a handle of Wild Turkey a day and beats the poo poo out of his kids would be fine. Or if I were looking for a new job and I land one at a more conservative-minded place and they go oh look at this loving lazy pothead sorry kid.

Well it would still be better than the status quo. All that goes on now and as a kicker you can be sent to jail.

eSports Chaebol
Feb 22, 2005

Yeah, actually, gamers in the house forever,

rscott posted:

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect elevating smokers to a protected class. It's illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty.

State Year Code
California 2005 CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6
Colorado 1990 CO REV. STAT. ANN § 24-34-402.5
Connecticut 2003 CT GEN. STAT. ANN. § 31-40s
District of Columbia 1993 D.C. CODE ANN. § 7-1703.3
Illinois 1987 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5
Indiana 2006 IND. CODE §§ 22-5-4-1 et seq.
Kentucky 1994 KY REV. STAT. ANN. § 344.040
Louisiana 1991 LA REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:966
Maine 1991 ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, § 597
Minnesota 1992 MINN. STAT. § 181.938
Mississippi 1994 MISS. CODE ANN. § 71-7-33
Missouri 1992 MO. REV. STAT. § 290.145
Montana 1993 MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314
Nevada 1991 NEV. REV. STAT. § 613.333
New Hampshire 1991 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:37-a
New Jersey 1991 N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:6B-1 et seq.
New Mexico 1991 N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-11-1 et seq.
New York 1992 N.Y. [LABOR] LAW § 201-d
North Carolina 1991 N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-28.2
North Dakota 1993 N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-02.4-01 et seq.
Oklahoma 1991 OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, § 500
Oregon 1989 OR. REV. STAT. §§ 659A.315 & 659A.885
Rhode Island 2005 R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-20.10-14
South Carolina 1991 S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-1-85
South Dakota 1991 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-4-11
Tennessee 1990 TENN. CODE ANN. § 50-1-304
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902
West Virginia 1992 W. VA. CODE § 21-3-19
Wisconsin 1991 WIS. STAT. §§ 111.31 et seq.
Wyoming 1992 WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 27-9-101 et seq.

So yeah, actually it is in a lot of places!

Jesus Christ, there are literally more states where it's illegal to fire someone for smoking than there are where it's illegal to fire someone for being gay.

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


Isn't marijuana legal in Michigan?

If I recall correctly Michigan State went to the feds directly and asked may enforce federal laws? The Fed said there was perfectly okay and every legitimate dealer was busted - by local and state law enforcement.

In the theory legalization for states is awesome but you're still hosed on a federal level.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Tab8715 posted:

Isn't marijuana legal in Michigan?

If I recall correctly Michigan State went to the feds directly and asked may enforce federal laws? The Fed said there was perfectly okay and every legitimate dealer was busted - by local and state law enforcement.

In the theory legalization for states is awesome but you're still hosed on a federal level.

Medical Marijuana was approved in 08 iirc but nothing about straight legalization.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

computer parts posted:

Nullification of federal law, essentially.
Can you explain this, because it doesn't make any sense to me? The nullification cases I'm aware of are either federal law making demands of states (and states can't ignore those demands by passing laws) or states trying to preempt federal action. I don't see any standing to complain that Colorado is only arresting people for marijuana possession if they are under 21.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

twodot posted:

Can you explain this, because it doesn't make any sense to me? The nullification cases I'm aware of are either federal law making demands of states (and states can't ignore those demands by passing laws) or states trying to preempt federal action. I don't see any standing to complain that Colorado is only arresting people for marijuana possession if they are under 21.
It's this one. Federal law states that a Schedule I drug, marijuana has no medical value and that it is illegal to make, possess, sell, etc it. By legalizing it, the states are saying that there actually is some value in it, and they're actually going to *tax* it as well, not just ignore federal law as is the status quo.

Thundercracker
Jun 25, 2004

Proudly serving the Ruinous Powers since as a veteran of the long war.
College Slice

whoredog posted:

It's funny, my girlfriend (32) didn't drink a drop before 2 years ago. Last weekend, at a friends house party, she drank WAY too much and while writing in the depths of being miserable, she wondered how alcohol was legal while weed wasn't. Weed doesn't make you fall down stairs. Weed doesn't make you puke your guts out for an hour. Weed doesn't make you feel like death incarnate the next day. Weed doesn't make you beat your chest in a show of manliness and start fights.

Yet it's illegal, while alcohol is legal and glorified. And if you smoked weed in the past 30 days you will fail new-hire or random drug tests. But you could be a belligerent drunk that beats his wife and kids and have no problems.

Our oligarchy that made it illegal can go suck a black cock.

It's really tradition. Any study will show the morbidity and mortality ratio from Alchohol vs. Weed to be so outrageous as to be almost infinite.

Detractors will say, of course, weed might make you dumb, lose short-term memory. But alchohol has those exact side-effect, and in higher numbers.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

computer parts posted:

It's this one. Federal law states that a Schedule I drug, marijuana has no medical value and that it is illegal to make, possess, sell, etc it. By legalizing it, the states are saying that there actually is some value in it, and they're actually going to *tax* it as well, not just ignore federal law as is the status quo.
The tax portion seems attackable, especially given the history of the Marijuana Tax Act, but I don't see any conflict in declining to have laws criminalizing marijuana.

I live in Washington, and our code seems to define our own scheduling which may be different from federal scheduling (the board may place not shall):

quote:

(a) The state board of pharmacy shall place a substance in Schedule I upon finding that the substance:
(1) has high potential for abuse;
(2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
(3) lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.
(b) The board may place a substance in Schedule I without making the findings required by subsection (a) of this section if the substance is controlled under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act by a federal agency as the result of an international treaty, convention, or protocol.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.203

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 11, 2012

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Thundercracker posted:

Detractors will say, of course, weed might make you dumb, lose short-term memory. But alchohol has those exact side-effect, and in higher numbers.

Not to mention marijuana has legitimate and possibly radically-positive medical uses, that have also been recognized and patented by the United States government despite its continuing status as Schedule 1.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Benagain posted:

Hahahaah like the US would ever pay the slighest amount of attention to any international treaty it didn't want to.

The funny part is we are the ones who pushed to put weed in those treaties to begin with.

I've heard nationally legalization polls at 50+%, and that is about the margin for picking the President, so yeah, Legalize It :420:

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003
So is the story about William Randolph Hearst single-handedly getting marijuana criminalized to stifle hemp paper true or what?

Sleepy Beef
Oct 2, 2009

by Fistgrrl

Loving Life Partner posted:

So is the story about William Randolph Hearst single-handedly getting marijuana criminalized to stifle hemp paper true or what?

I wouldn't say single-handedly (racism towards black folks in the South and Hispanic immigrants in the Southwest played a huge role too), but it is kinda hard to overstate the impact his papers' yellow journalism had on public opinion.

Whether he did so consciously because of the challenge he faced in the hemp industry is another matter that I'm not entirely sure of. That's certainly the story I've heard multiple times though, and it makes sense to me.

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Hearst + Harry J. Anslinger. Those two guys basically toted about 95% of the responsibility for cannabis prohibition.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
Going on my Time Machine assassination list along with Ayn Rand and Ed Bernays

KingEup
Nov 18, 2004
I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)


Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.
There's a good article on this over at The Amercian Conservative. The opponents are the worst kind of drug warriors you can imagine. What will we do these people after the [drug] war?

quote:

The legalization movement has benefited from a new approach, appealing to middle American sensibilities about the failure of the drug war and the hard lessons of prohibition. It is also gaining traction with fiscal conservatives who would rather tax marijuana sales than shuffle thousands of drug offenders through courts and prisons each year. According to this fiscal impact study, for example, the State of Colorado expects to save $12 million and raise $22.6 million in the first year of legalization through marijuana sales tax and licensing fees (embedded in the Colorado amendment is a clause mandating that the first $40 million raised be earmarked for a public school construction fund).

In Colorado, Amendment 64: Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012 enjoys a wide swath of support from retired police officers, the NAACP, clergy, the Denver County Republican Assembly, and the State Democratic Party Convention, virtually insulating it from the typical attacks in which hippie dopester caricatures abound. The measure would amend the Colorado state constitution to make it legal for individuals over the age of 21 to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and/or grow up to six plants. It would allow the state to tax and regulate its sale, while maintaining current medical marijuana laws.

The major effort against it, a campaign called Smart Colorado, is headed by Wade County District Attorney Ken Buck, a controversial Republican who unsuccessfully attempted to ride the Tea Party wave into the U.S Senate in 2010. Smart Colorado, according to Colorado news reports, is operated by cadre of Denver lobbyists and funded mostly in part by Florida strip-mall tycoon and major Republican contributor Mel Sembler.

Sembler, a big-time donor to neoconservative national-security causes, according to RightWeb, is also a big anti-drug warrior and the founder of Straight Inc., a residential “tough love” teenage drug-treatment program that was forced to shut its doors in 1993 after numerous accusations of excessive physical force, psychological abuse, and at least one conviction of false imprisonment. Sembler now heads the Drug Free America Foundation and enjoys the support of prominent Republicans like George W. and Jeb Bush. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marijuana-legalizations-tipping-point/

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

McDowell posted:

Going on my Time Machine assassination list along with Ayn Rand and Ed Bernays

Hearst also kept Upton Sinclair from becoming Governor of California.

Chamale
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!



Solkanar512 posted:

Hearst also kept Upton Sinclair from becoming Governor of California.

He also pushed public opinion in favour of starting a war with Spain, which killed 15,000 people.

The only people I know today who want to keep cannabis outlawed are either very conservative or uninformed about the reasons for legalization.

Fragmented
Oct 7, 2003

I'm not ready =(

whoredog posted:

Our oligarchy that made it illegal can go suck a black cock.

You don't have PM's so i have to call you out here. Black cock? is sucking a black cock worse than any other cock? What the gently caress man. I don't think you meant much by it but holy poo poo dude.

Anyways, i live outside Seattle. Most of the medical growers i know aren't in favor of the WA law change. Apparently it will make it illegal for patients to sell to other patients or something. Everyone will have to grow themselves or buy from the state run stores. Someone tell me if i'm wrong here.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Fragmented posted:


Anyways, i live outside Seattle. Most of the medical growers i know aren't in favor of the WA law change. Apparently it will make it illegal for patients to sell to other patients or something. Everyone will have to grow themselves or buy from the state run stores. Someone tell me if i'm wrong here.
here's the relevant website for the Pro-502 people. Basically it seems the major hangup is the lack of advertising for stores and placement of the marijuana stores (ie, you can't sell it with any other product, and it has to be at least 1000 feet from any schools/playgrounds/parks), and that only medical marijuana patients can grow it instead of anyone.

Other than that it seems fairly boilerplate for legal controlled substances.

Fragmented
Oct 7, 2003

I'm not ready =(

From the site:

"According to the state Office of Financial Management, a new 25% marijuana excise tax, combined with retail sales and B&O tax, will generate more than half a billion dollars in new revenue each year."

This will just drive the selling of cannabis underground again for most people.

Edit: I mean there has to be a tax but 25%? That plus the other taxes and restrictions i can see why grower's are freaking out.

Fragmented fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Oct 12, 2012

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
Cigarette taxes are way way way higher than that and the convenience of legality is pretty important.

Wreckus
Dec 15, 2007

From birth, man carries the weight of gravity on his shoulders. He is bolted to earth. But man has only to sink beneath the surface and he is free.

Fragmented posted:

From the site:

"According to the state Office of Financial Management, a new 25% marijuana excise tax, combined with retail sales and B&O tax, will generate more than half a billion dollars in new revenue each year."

This will just drive the selling of cannabis underground again for most people.

Edit: I mean there has to be a tax but 25%? That plus the other taxes and restrictions i can see why grower's are freaking out.

If it's legal people will still be paying WAY below street prices.

Even indoor grown stuff costs only about $300/lb, at the high end, for the electricity and nutrients. Outdoor stuff would be even cheaper, free at the low end...

Even with a 100% tax it would be significantly cheaper than current street prices. Most of the cost that people pay is due to the grower/dealer taking an enormous risk in dealing in illegal substances. The actual product barely costs anything to produce.

gvibes
Jan 18, 2010

Leading us to the promised land (i.e., one tournament win in five years)
Still not sure why this would be Supreme Court issue. This is clearly an area in which both state and federal laws coexist. There is no requirement that I know of that states can't not have laws against things that are illegal at the federal level.

Warchicken posted:

This is what will happen. If Romney wins election, he will raid every medical dispensary and send every single medical patient to jail even if they are suffering horribly on their deathbeds. Welcome to america.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/feds-target-71-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-in-la-county.html

quote:

Federal authorities on Tuesday took legal action against 71 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County, part of an ongoing campaign to crack down on the establishments.

mdemone posted:

They would be able to, but they won't. Federal enforcement agencies no longer have any desire to keep wasting time and money on cannabis (despite what we potheads generally believe), but they are duty-bound to do so at the present. Sure, there are a few True Believers left in the drug war, and they'll throw some wrenches into the process after the first legalization occurs, but mostly the DEA et al. would just really like not to have to deal with cannabis anymore.
I am pretty sure that they are not duty-bound to do poo poo. If they wanted to decide to never prosecute anyone for cannabis offenses, there is nothing stopping them. As one example, see Obama's executive order on immigration, in which he basically said he would enforcing some immigration laws in some circumstances.

Fragmented posted:

From the site:

"According to the state Office of Financial Management, a new 25% marijuana excise tax, combined with retail sales and B&O tax, will generate more than half a billion dollars in new revenue each year."

This will just drive the selling of cannabis underground again for most people.

Edit: I mean there has to be a tax but 25%? That plus the other taxes and restrictions i can see why grower's are freaking out.
Aren't cigarette taxes as high, if not higher?

e: No idea if right, but:

quote:

About 82% of what consumers pay for a pack of cigarettes (average cost $5.95 – including statewide sales taxes but not local cigarette or sales taxes) ends up going to the government in taxes and other payments rather than for the cigarettes.
http://www.retirementliving.com/taxes-by-state

And yeah, what wreckus said - weed would be ridiculously cheap if legal.

gvibes fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Oct 12, 2012

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

I find it really interesting that a lot of you are using the "alcohol users beat their wife and kids" example in your pro-weed conversations. I think that is pretty counter productive. Not even close to all alcohol users beat their families. That just encourages anti-weed folks to classify you guys: lazy students mooching off of society. Not a really accurate description, I'm sure.

It's like pro-gun folks saying cars kill more people per year than guns. It doesn't help you in any way to make bad comparisons.

a lovely poster
Aug 5, 2011

by Pipski

Tuxedo Gin posted:

I find it really interesting that a lot of you are using the "alcohol users beat their wife and kids" example in your pro-weed conversations. I think that is pretty counter productive. Not even close to all alcohol users beat their families. That just encourages anti-weed folks to classify you guys: lazy students mooching off of society. Not a really accurate description, I'm sure.

It's like pro-gun folks saying cars kill more people per year than guns. It doesn't help you in any way to make bad comparisons.

Except that guns and cars really aren't the same sort of product whereas alcohol and marijuana are both mind altering substances. I'm not saying calling alcohol drinkers out as wife beaters is a good idea (it isn't) but it's not that bad of a comparison if you stick to the statistics, which bear out that alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana, not to mention 90% of the schedule 1 drug list.

Chitin
Apr 29, 2007

It is no sign of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

a lovely poster posted:

Except that guns and cars really aren't the same sort of product whereas alcohol and marijuana are both mind altering substances. I'm not saying calling alcohol drinkers out as wife beaters is a good idea (it isn't) but it's not that bad of a comparison if you stick to the statistics, which bear out that alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana, not to mention 90% of the schedule 1 drug list.

Alcohol is more or less the only drug that causes health damage at normal consumption levels. Heroin, crack and meth don't come close the the body load alcohol has - most of the physical damage we associate with these substances comes from chaotic abuse patterns and homelessness. Alcohol damages your liver over time even at non-abuse levels.

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003
I think mostly it's the silliness of the illegality. It's an adult product with a valid base of citizens that want to use and enjoy it legally.

I've drank, and I've done every drug under the sun and there's just no reason for a product like alcohol to be legal when something as mild and inoffensive as bud isn't.

The scariest times of my life have been legally alcohol fueled and semi-socially acceptable (blacking out is HILARIOUS, it has 2 major motion films, meanwhile, it's pretty loving terrifying).

showbiz_liz
Jun 2, 2008

gvibes posted:

Still not sure why this would be Supreme Court issue. This is clearly an area in which both state and federal laws coexist. There is no requirement that I know of that states can't not have laws against things that are illegal at the federal level.

Yeah, but if Colorado says it's legal and the feds say it isn't, then it's not really legal. The DEA doesn't HAVE to raid people, but that doesn't mean they won't.

gvibes
Jan 18, 2010

Leading us to the promised land (i.e., one tournament win in five years)

showbiz_liz posted:

Yeah, but if Colorado says it's legal and the feds say it isn't, then it's not really legal. The DEA doesn't HAVE to raid people, but that doesn't mean they won't.
Agreed.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Wreckus
Dec 15, 2007

From birth, man carries the weight of gravity on his shoulders. He is bolted to earth. But man has only to sink beneath the surface and he is free.

Loving Life Partner posted:

I think mostly it's the silliness of the illegality. It's an adult product with a valid base of citizens that want to use and enjoy it legally.

I've drank, and I've done every drug under the sun and there's just no reason for a product like alcohol to be legal when something as mild and inoffensive as bud isn't.

The scariest times of my life have been legally alcohol fueled and semi-socially acceptable (blacking out is HILARIOUS, it has 2 major motion films, meanwhile, it's pretty loving terrifying).

I'm the same way, cannabis is so much milder than alcohol. No hangover, no blackouts, no overdose risk, and as long as you vape/eat there is very little health risks compared to the legal drugs.

The withdrawal symptoms consist of a lack of appetite, difficulty falling asleep and boredom all incredibly mild. Alcohol withdrawal symptoms can kill you in extreme cases, Nicotine withdrawal symptoms are incredibly intense and can last for weeks/months.

If you look at it objectively, there is no reason that Cannabis should be Schedule I... it should be treated like Alcohol or Tobacco. Limit consumption to 21+ to avoid any neurological issues caused by drug use during brain development... and let adults choose for themselves.

Prison time for Cannabis is so beyond absurd I have a hard time talking about it without getting angry at the number of lives ruined due to these stupid laws.

  • Locked thread