Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

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.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2012 11:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:16

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Clearly, a big win for marijuana advocates. While essentially void due to Federal Law it's incredible to see such an enormous change in public opinion.

That said - there is no protection for marijuana users when it comes to employment drug testing. It doesn't matter if you have a medical marijuana card or you're a legal user in your state. You have no rights.

Am I largely missing something? What the hell were the creators of the Colorado and Washington bills thinking? How many people work at corporations that drug test?

This - is an enormous let down.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 03:13

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Delta-Wye posted:

A let down how? You make it sound like a bill that forces companies to hire stoners had a chance when that doesn't seem to be the case.

What major corporation is going to openly hire someone who uses marijuana legal or not?

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 04:08

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Zen Punk posted:

This is a short-sighted argument. What if technological improvements make drug tests cheap?

It's morally repellent. Employers shouldn't have that kind of power over your personal life. The only possible justification is prevention of actual impairment in sensitive positions like surgeon, machine operator, etc.

Exactly.

I know there's a pre-employement Drug Screening at Microsoft (it's moot if they don't test after the fact) and there's hundreds of thousands that work for various vendors - they do test and I've worked for one.

Now, this isn't a an exception but are you guys serious? If I apply at Vmware, Cisco, Intel or whatever big name IT Consulting Company there's no drug testing at all?

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 05:36

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

It's look like I'm wrong about some companies - which is awesome but it doesn't change the fact that

A) A lot companies don't test but its spelled out in your contract that marijuana use is a violation and they may test.

B) Many employers test

I don't see how employers should be allowed to discriminate for a product that is legal, used outside of work and doesn't have an effect on job. I am a little perplexed how nicotine use may result in the non-hiring of an individual.

On a second thought, maybe the addition of such a provision would have made it much more difficult to pass this law however I don't understand how'd that be the case. I'll see if I can email both proposition organizers and see what they have to say.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2012 16:47

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Why can't I live in Colorado or Washington? :smith:

# ¿ Nov 12, 2012 00:51

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

I think the attorney general - Eric Holder is scheduled to meet with both Washington and Colorado State Attorneys this week.

We will see how this plays out. One good piece of news is the State and Local police of Colorado have elected to not get involved with enforcing Federal Laws - unlike Michigan.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2012 17:04

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

It passed on Colorado and Washington - I don't see how Rhode Island or Maine are somehow immune from legalization.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2012 05:37

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Hollis posted:

and where exactly would these places be, please be precise. Not that I don't believe you but I am pretty sure this isn't true at all.

edit:

Also wasn't the Attorney General of Colorado suppose to meet with the Justice department this week? I can't find a story on it or whether it happened.

He was suppose to meet with both - I haven't heard a thing.

Here we go!

Washington Governor Meets With DOJ On Marijuana Legalization

There doesn't appear to be any details - I suspect that why there isn't a press release. I'm thinking we'll have to wait until December when it's officially legal.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Nov 16, 2012

# ¿ Nov 16, 2012 08:35

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Sources says its unlikely given the current Climate in California. Granted, you might end up as one the unlucky few.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2012 02:06

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

NY Times Reports anonymous government officials will do something to stop Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana.

Well, looks like the Obama Administration is going to play hardball but I wonder what could possibly be their strategy?

# ¿ Dec 10, 2012 15:13

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Colorado task force created to regulate marjiuana

From the article...

quote:

In an interview last week with Barbara Walters, President Obama assuaged the fears of marijuana proponents, saying the federal government would not pursue marijuana users in states where the drug is now legal.

While Obama might not go after the users - will he stop the Justice Department?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2012 19:44

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

mdemone posted:

The DOJ and what army are going to pursue individual users across two (and maybe more) large states?

They won't peruse individual users as it's not efficient but there's nothing stopping them from busting anyone who opens a dispensary.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2012 20:05

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

mdemone posted:

There hasn't been anything stopping them from busting every dispensary across all 20 states with medical marijuana laws. Oh wait, there has been something stopping them: it's the fact that it would be literally impossible for an agency of their size to make a quantifiable dent. All they can do is bust somebody for show, every now and then, and hope it changes the course of local policy and public opinion. Obviously, however, it's not working -- and these people aren't stupid. They know full well that state legalization is de facto federal in the particular case of cannabis, and they also know that there are bigger fish to fry for a drug-enforcement agency with finite resources.

Edit: I've tacitly referred to the DEA here, but this goes for the DOJ too, mostly.

There are what? A few thousand dispensaries at best?

They're publicly visible - and it's been done in places like California in the past. I don't think for a second busting distributors isn't attainable because the DEA is too small.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Dec 21, 2012

# ¿ Dec 21, 2012 07:54

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Huh? I was under the impression that tobacco is not easy to grow and while growing marijuana is less difficult growing good marijuana is not.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2012 01:45

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

For pricing - can't we just look at the legal medical marijuana industry and work from that?

# ¿ Dec 26, 2012 01:35

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Here's why State's legalizing weed doesn't matter in the long run...

California vs. The Feds

quote:

the United States Justice Department indicted Mr. Davies six months ago on charges of cultivating marijuana, after raiding two dispensaries and a warehouse filled with nearly 2,000 marijuana plants.

The United States attorney for the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner, a 2009 Obama appointee, wants Mr. Davies to agree to a plea that includes a mandatory minimum of five years in prison, calling the case a straightforward prosecution of �one of the most significant commercial marijuana traffickers to be prosecuted in this district.�

This is the exact risk every state-legal grower is potentially up against. Is it really worth it when you're looking at a 5-year minimum sentence and no other alternatives aside from a pardon - which is impossible for a variety of reasons.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 00:36

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Riven posted:

I think this is going to be more of a problem when the alcohol style distribution channels are set up.

Or anyone that operates a dispensary.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 01:16

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

tastethehappy posted:

My problem was with the way Tab was saying "you might go to jail! is it really worth it then for states to try and legalize it?!?" which is a dumb defeatist attitude.

I don't see how you're concluding that from my statement, let me re-iterate.

Yes, States legalizing without a doubt is a great move; small-time users aren't going to jail and freedom is essentially one step closer. While again this is great news it's still not that good. Anyone who has the "biggest" marijuana business is going to be a target and the fact remains there's always going to be someone who's the biggest. Sucks to be them.

Now, it's brought up that the Federal Government doesn't have the resources to enforce this but we have yet for anyone to show this beyond quoting the Wikipedia DEA Page they only have ten-thousand some odd agents. True, there's a significant lack of resources when comes to combating this and while I'm unsure if State Police may be "compelled" to enforce Federal Law it's actually optional if state/local police wish to enforce this.

Example, when medical marijuana was legalized in Michigan the State Police went to the Federal Government and asked if they could enforce it. The Feds gave a green light and legal dispensaries were shutdown by State Police.

hobbesmaster posted:

Would he go to trial in California? I'm sure it won't actually go to trial, but jury nullification here would be amazing.

I recall reading a New York or Los Angeles Article were this was specifically discussed. Somehow with these Federal cases it doesn't matter and the Judge will reverse the ruling if the jury goes for nullification. They also also ruled out that the defense can't use Obama's claim how he would order the Justice Department to not go after medical dispensaries in California or how his previous legal advice was inadequate.

I've been told by some lawyers who've worked with the Fed that if California were to legalize marijuana it would essentially become "Armageddon". I wasn't able to get much more information such as why is California is so important.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jan 16, 2013

# ¿ Jan 16, 2013 01:28

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

KingEup posted:

The whole road safety thing shits me to tears.

I hear a version of this argument all the time:

"We can't legalise weed etc because we already have enough problems with people driving under the influence of alcohol"

It's like saying:

"Riding bikes should be unlawful because we already have enough problems with car accidents and we don't want to add to the problem"

I'm trying to find it but does this match up with a specific logical fallacy?

# ¿ Jan 19, 2013 02:42

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

KingEup posted:

Watch out for these guys folks. They manipulate, they lie and they speak in the name of science. They've made a career out of drug prohibition and they're not going to give-up without a fight.

Legalization's Biggest Enemies

Some of the people listed Michele Leonhart, Gil Kerlikowske work for the government. With the government's official stance on marijuana being harmful if they were to say they supported legalization they would be out of a job and replaced the very next day.

David Frum strikes me as the worst offender of the whole bunch. He's a horribly bad political pundit with the worst OP-EDs and uses the "think of the children" argument; he's beating a dead horse.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana doesn't look anything but a empty blog with nice pictures. Save our Society from Drugs looks an actual group although seems little neo-prohibitionist.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2013 00:36

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Not to mention an incredible hypocrite

Where are you getting this from?

# ¿ Jan 20, 2013 00:57

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

David Frum posted:

(And if you're wondering: no, I'm not normally in the habit of pouring myself Hitchens sized slugs of whisky, but it seemed appropriate preparation for this particular encounter.)

Back Chat With David Frum

Has anyone called this guy out?

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jan 20, 2013

# ¿ Jan 20, 2013 01:18

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Radbot posted:

I really, really don't understand the "well alcohol is bad enough, we don't need MORE drugs!" argument, especially coming from conservatives. Couldn't you easily use that (specious) argument against guns, too? "The guns we have are bad enough, we don't need MORE/DEADLIER weapons!"

David's taking the use marijuana out of the context or limiting the perspective. He's not looking at any of the actual benefits of recreational marijuana use - less stress, relaxing and fun!

# ¿ Jan 20, 2013 20:39

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Lacrosse posted:

The court came back today saying that they aren't going to reclassify marijuana: http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Court-rejects-bid-to-have-marijuana-reclassified-187978981.html

drat - does anyone have the court opinion? I'd like to read it.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2013 03:08

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Morphix posted:

So... about those state legalization measures...

Seattle had their first town hall meeting recently, more are following in various parts of the state. I missed the Seattle one but my lawyer's staying on top of the relevant issues, nothing of importance seemed to have came up.

You know what it feels like right now? A motherfucking California gold rush. Everyone who has a piece of poo poo property is trying to cash in with ridiculous terms/conditions. I've had more offers for space in the past month than I've ever had in my entire career.

I always knew they're be a sink or swim moment for me in this industry, and it's a surprise it's all happening so fast. I don't know about Colorado, but Washington is poised to be the producer/tourist destination for herb for the West Coast simply because everyone seems to be on board. And my god is there a lot of local venture/vulture money flying around.

Forget about Camel or Marb blowing this business up, tech workers with disposable investment's are going to do that.

I'm looking forward to the Cannabis Cup being held in Seattle in 2014 or 2015 at the latest. I'd bet a pound on that.

You would imagine it's a bit more controlled, I would hope something like liquor licenses are implemented.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2013 02:25

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Morphix posted:

I had a meeting with Mike Reed this weekend, whose one of the bigger lawyers representing people in Seattle in our industry. I think he's going to be setting up my next expansion.

A few things I learned from the meeting;

-There's a 21 year old millionaire who I'm supposed to meet, who I'm kind of jealous of because goddamn I'm closing in on 30 and noone near that successful.
- Washington's latest estimates on how much we need to produce to meet just the local needs is, 89 Millions Grams per year.

Let me say that again, that's 189,000~ loving pounds. Just for the local economy. That number is blowing my mind.

-Seattle is good to go, basically it's by municipality at this point. Certain areas don't give a poo poo how big you go, other areas, like say Lynnwood or anything patrolled by the Sheriffs, well good luck.

-The Washington Sherrifs have a kangaroo style court where you basically get robbed by the Police. Any money, seriously, any money you have on you, they will take at least 35% of on avg. Like, you can literally get out of trouble if you don't try to claim whatever they took.

- There is an amazing assortment of characters in this industry, ex-bodyguards to Saudi Princes, former sherrifs, Microsofties, one of the founders of Progressive is even trying to get a cut from the industry via DUI's lol.

-Good Lawyers are expensive, but at the same time, they're understandable of the industry and basically playing it for the long game by getting points on the back end. So it's only costing me $3500/yr to have representation but it involves points. Tough decisions to make.

- You can pay for politicians furniture and house upgrades via campaign contributions. I kid you not.

I might make an ask/tell thread about my experiences over the next few months, but definitely will register a new name. As I no longer feel that comfortable talking about specifics of my business.

Please, do - this is incredibly engaging.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2013 03:34

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

It's over just yet...

Attorney General to respond "relatively-soon" to Washington and Colorado Marijuana Legalization

I'm really unsure of they could do but I can't imagine it'll be ignored.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2013 12:10

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Umph posted:

My buddy in high school got into a car accident and died because he smoked some weed that was laced with embalming fluid.

There no way in hell he didn't notice.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2013 12:27

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Is it still impossible to test for the THC levels? Aside from a blood test which a cop doesn't have off-hand.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2013 02:19

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Powercrazy posted:

What do people think about the States Rights approach to Marijuana Legalization? i.e. exactly what is happening now. Various states are taking the position that they will defy the federal government and of course many people agree with them, but it seems hypocritical to take this position if you denigrate the States Rights argument in general.

It's a gamble - Marijuana advocates are hoping that the feds will ignore them. One of thing that's frequently forgotten is there isn't anything against local law enforcement enforcing federal law - look what happen Medical Marijuana in Michigan.

What needs to happen is the government needs to re-schedule Marijuana but who knows how that'll happen.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2013 17:55

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

The AG has said that he will come up with a response to states legalizing very soon.

Or that's what he said 4 months ago...

# ¿ May 29, 2013 19:27

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

enbot posted:

Yea it's pretty naive to think there won't be a sizable bump in tourism from this.

Isn't Colorado already marketing 420 friendly hotels?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2013 19:58

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Is it obvious that weed is legal in the State? How much has change Washington and Colorado goons?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2013 06:59

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Capt. Morgan posted:

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the sheriff of Yuma County has to give back the marijuana that was seized from a MMJ card holder. The sheriff disagrees with the ruling and wants to see the case go to the US Supreme Court to solve the conflict between federal and state laws.

http://www.yumasun.com/articles/pot-88570-rules-case.html

In theory, the state is allowed to enforce federal laws. That's exactly what happen in Michigan - dispensaries were all raided by state and local police - enforcing federal law.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2013 14:37

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

InsomnicIneptitude posted:

Yeah, it's an extremely bizarre pseudo-legal framework... except it actually just isn't legal. Dispensaries just rely on a calculated hope that the federal government (or douche-ridden state law enforcement) won't raid them. Although I think the ability of the police to enforce federal laws depends upon the way the state law enforcement is structured.

Federal law supersedes state law, there isn't any grey-area here it's just basic fact.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2013 05:13

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Leopold Stotch posted:

What about all the non violent, low level drug offenders already in federal prison for ridiculous mandatory minimums? "We were wrong but also sorry, no takebacks?"

Most of the time, new policies aren't retroactive but this is still enormously good news.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2013 19:14

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Does anyone know what happen to Fiona Apple over her hash charge?

# ¿ Jun 28, 2014 07:59

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

Rich and white? Most likely nothing.

That's the thing, Texas has a mandatory minimum for hash yet there isn't a single news article about her sentencing.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2014 00:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:16

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

hangedman1984 posted:

So that kid facing a possible life sentence for pot brownies? Looks like there is actually somebody in Texas with some common sense, his case has been dropped:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...detail=facebook

Unless something radically changed, the DA dropped the felony charges but is still pursuing a misdemeanor.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2014 05:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

«‹›3 »