|
more friedman units posted:It's an academic discussion since the Department of Justice is going to stomp the regulation, production, and distribution aspects in both states. There's that. It's a tough nut from the Federal perspective, no doubt about it. Without some reclassification or new law, Obama's DOJ/DEA are compelled to enforce existing law. Therefore, the answer to this problem is a reclassification. There's already a court case in DC Federal Court on the matter. Next stop, SC. How do you think they'll rule on the matter: Does Marijuana have medical value or is the question significant enough to warrant a reclassification? Surely, we could count on a "strict constitutionalist" like Justice Scalia to vote in favor of State's Rights in this matter, yes?
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
more friedman units posted:It's an academic discussion since the Department of Justice is going to stomp the regulation, production, and distribution aspects in both states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Beer has no medicinal value, but you can find that pretty readily. Really, the whole medical thing was legitimate at first (to prove that not only is cannabis not terribly bad for you, but can in fact be therapeutic in some situations) but it's really become a canard, hasn't it? It's not exactly a high water mark for the anti-prohibition crowd that people can get marijuana legally - by faking or over playing a medical condition, or going to a dubious medical source and obtaining a shady scrip. Really, I would be in favor of big business taking over the vast majority of cannabis production in the US. Drug Cartels would really take a blow from that. Al Capone never had anything on Anheiser Busch. When you take the costs of smuggling and armed security out of the equation, Phillip morris could bankrupt them in as much time as it takes to take one plant to maturity, because if the laws were in place tomorrow the first crop would be ready to go in a handful of months and then it'd pretty much be lights out for all but the biggest cartels. Really though, does anyone have any statistics on the portfolio of some of these cartels? I would have to think that cannabis would be one of the bigger moneymakers, but I honestly don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Beer has no medicinal value, but you can find that pretty readily. Really, the whole medical thing was legitimate at first (to prove that not only is cannabis not terribly bad for you, but can in fact be therapeutic in some situations) but it's really become a canard, hasn't it? It's not exactly a high water mark for the anti-prohibition crowd that people can get marijuana legally - by faking or over playing a medical condition, or going to a dubious medical source and obtaining a shady scrip. Most estimates I've seen have cannabis pinned at about 50% of cartel income. It wouldn't exactly be a death blow, but legalization would save alot of lives and go a really long way towards making Mexico safe again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Cannabis also incurs the lowest cost to produce. It's incredibly profitable for Cartels once you factor in street price and the amounts shipped out. It's the biggest reason why there should be more support for legalization. Money is flowing freely into the pockets of some very, very dangerous people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:While Obama might not go after the users - will he stop the Justice Department? The DOJ and what army are going to pursue individual users across two (and maybe more) large states?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:They won't peruse individual users as it's not efficient but there's nothing stopping them from busting anyone who opens a dispensary. 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. mdemone fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:They won't peruse individual users as it's not efficient but there's nothing stopping them from busting anyone who opens a dispensary. I was under the impression that even when it comes to busting dispensaries over the last couple years they have only been busting dispensaries that are illegal by state laws; dispensaries that are to close to schools and stuff like that. Considering by federal law even medical uses are illegal I would think we could look at how they were treating medical dispensaries in the last 2-3 years as a pretty good indication of how they will treat non-medical dispensaries in WA and CO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
TheGreySpectre posted:I was under the impression that even when it comes to busting dispensaries over the last couple years they have only been busting dispensaries that are illegal by state laws; dispensaries that are to close to schools and stuff like that. Considering by federal law even medical uses are illegal I would think we could look at how they were treating medical dispensaries in the last 2-3 years as a pretty good indication of how they will treat non-medical dispensaries in WA and CO. To some degree, yes. They like to play games though where the overlapping bubbles from schools, parks, school bus stops, candy stores, etc, give them a lot of leeway to claim a particular place is in violation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
TheGreySpectre posted:I would think we could look at how they were treating medical dispensaries in the last 2-3 years as a pretty good indication of how they will treat non-medical dispensaries in WA and CO. Get too big or loud and you might get smacked down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
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. It'd be pretty easy for the feds to shut down the licensing/regulation/taxation systems, though. Small businesses might get away with thumbing their noses at the federal government, but historically, that hasn't worked out so well for state governments. For end users under the possession limits, it probably won't be much different - either way, it's effectively decriminalized. For state governments hoping to stretch their budgets with some sweet weed money, it might be a major issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
The other problem, which existing dispensaries are already having to deal with, is that no banks want ton get involved. Its a lot harder to run a small business when you don't have access to loans or even a checking account for your business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
I think marijuana businesses constitute a sufficiently distinct group to qualify for forming a credit union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I think marijuana businesses constitute a sufficiently distinct group to qualify for forming a credit union. I hope they enjoy fighting federal money laundering prosecutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I hope they enjoy fighting federal money laundering prosecutions. You can't get in trouble for money laundering when your stated business is selling weed, and selling weed is what you do. There's no laundering going on there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You can't get in trouble for money laundering when your stated business is selling weed, and selling weed is what you do. There's no laundering going on there. From what I understand the money would be forfeitured as illegal assets, right? So having weed money is not onto itself illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You can't get in trouble for money laundering when your stated business is selling weed, and selling weed is what you do. There's no laundering going on there. If a bank were to accept and lend only in cash, maybe (and probably not) they could avoid laundering charges, but then they are wide open to civil forfeiture and wouldn't have a functional business model as a bank anyway. Realistically, the moment those funds are made electronic and mixed with the rest of the economy, they would be laundering money because it has to pass through other financial institutions who were not explicitly told that the money is from federally illegal activities. And if they made sure that it was perfectly clear, no one with business outside that state would settle a transaction for or with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 14:08
|
|
|
No that is not how money laundering laws work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
I'm excited for what's going to happen with industrial hemp. There are a lot of farmers out here who are struggling with fuel and water costs. Hemp takes less water than comparable crops, takes less effort to grow, produces more fabric, and is a much more efficient source of fuel than something like corn (E85). We're not talking about little mom and pop weed shops, this could be a multi-billion dollar industry for textiles and fuel. What are some potential ways the feds could stop the regulation and licensing aspect of Amendment 64? Shutting down individual dispensaries didn't stop MMJ, so I don't think shutting down individual farms would work either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:What are some potential ways the feds could stop the regulation and licensing aspect of Amendment 64? Shutting down individual dispensaries didn't stop MMJ, so I don't think shutting down individual farms would work either. Sorta doubt that'll happen though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No that is not how money laundering laws work. They could still charge dispensaries under RICO if they wanted to be especially cruel. It wouldn't even be such a flagrant abuse of the law on its face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Can't they just have HSBC handle the money laundering? That is what the Mexican drug cartels did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They could still charge dispensaries under RICO if they wanted to be especially cruel. It wouldn't even be such a flagrant abuse of the law on its face. They totally could, but not because of money laundering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They could still charge dispensaries under RICO if they wanted to be especially cruel. It wouldn't even be such a flagrant abuse of the law on its face. All these things they could "normally" do become much harder though. All these investigations lean pretty heavily on local resources, and in Colorado for example they would be denied the support of any state resources in prosecuting or investigating dispensaries. The Feds would need to allocate significantly more resources to each case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:There are what? A few thousand dispensaries at best? The DEA doesn't have very many agents, and they're mostly required to be used at border control and things like that. They actually don't have the manpower to go around shutting the dispensaries down en masse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The DEA doesn't have very many agents, and they're mostly required to be used at border control and things like that. They actually don't have the manpower to go around shutting the dispensaries down en masse. I'm very sure they could go on a tour of WA and CO, with the ATF if needed, and shut down every open dispensary. Stores don't reopen for business the day after a Federal raid. If they wanted to, they could put a stop to this very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I'm very sure they could go on a tour of WA and CO, with the ATF if needed, and shut down every open dispensary. I kinda doubt it, they'd probably have to bring in a significant portion of the FBI and US Marshals. Even if they could, it would be politically poisonous and nonsensical to even attempt it. If it wasn't, they'd already have done it with medical dispensaries a long time ago. My feeling is that there is no real will to enforce MJ laws outside of the agencies that directly financially benefit. The silence from the federal government after WA and CO legalized is very telling. As long as those states don't try to directly challenge federal supremacy, I don't think there is going to be much of a response. But I guess we'll see in about a year...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I'm very sure they could go on a tour of WA and CO, with the ATF if needed, and shut down every open dispensary. They only have 4500 agents, most of whom are assigned pretty much permanently to anything other than roving enforcement. They care a whole lot more about stopping people running cocaine across the border or wahtev then they do about dispensaries, and they know that if they ever started mounting widespread raids at their current staffing level; all the drug runner types would be busting through wherever they expected agents to be taken from. It would require depletion of their resources in a major way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I kinda doubt it, they'd probably have to bring in a significant portion of the FBI and US Marshals. Even if they could, it would be politically poisonous and nonsensical to even attempt it. If it wasn't, they'd already have done it with medical dispensaries a long time ago. Any federal enforcement will be token at best. It's a losing issue politically. Even Republicans, who style themselves anti-government, won't be in favor of busts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
What about tying federal law enforcement grants to enforcement of federal marijuana law? My understanding is a lot of police departments live and die by federal money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:What about tying federal law enforcement grants to enforcement of federal marijuana law? My understanding is a lot of police departments live and die by federal money. That seems too extreme for a token measure but not extreme enough if the goal is to actually imprison people with marijuana (since I don't think you can tie law enforcement grants to sentencing requirements).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:From what I understand the money would be forfeitured as illegal assets, right? One of the guys I went to school with opened up a local co-op here. The city voted to tax marijuana since it was broke. Local law enforcement then cracked down on co-ops and shut down most of them. In this case all money linked to the business was confiscated as it was linked to illegal activities and he couldn't use the lawyer he had on retainer since he couldn't prove he had paid her with clean money. Currently, a state judge is throwing out the cases linked to co-ops that were operating legally and paying taxes. Basically, it's just a mess until there is decent regulation in place for local dispensaries at federal, state and local levels. Edit: yeah it was strange, the city was bankrupt and needed the money as well. I do see how cities get frustrated with having a bunch of dispensaries around and a desire to cut back but again, better more consistent regulations at all levels. lightpole fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
The local police busted a shop in a city with a tax on marijuana? Bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Tax revenue on marijuana is a decent income to poor local governements. Outright seizing everything involved with a coop under the guise of federal law is probably better money for the short term budget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
So you tax 'em for a few months and then after you're tired of it you raid the place and seize all the assets, netting you more money in the short term and imprisoning evil drug users, thus displaying to scared old white people that you are tough on drugs and therefore, crime. That's the great thing about grey areas! If you're a monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. Not so clear. Depends on the price elasticity of demand for weed, which we really can't estimate reliably considering the illegal --> legal transition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:21
|
|
