|
Powercrazy posted:Yea last year I was pretty concerned about the entrenched medical lobby stopping recreational sales, but it doesn't look like that is the case and I doubt there are that many entitled "patients" who would vote against recreational weed in some kind of FYGM, so hopefully that's not a concern. Given the whole thing about CO medicinal weed being cheaper than recreational, and thus undercutting rec because it's so easy to get a med card, is there some chance that CO (and maybe CA post-2016) will greatly tighten up the standards for a med card? Something like "no more scrips for anxiety, backaches, etc. Your happy rear end can pay retail for fully-taxed weed down at the cornershop."
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Given the whole thing about CO medicinal weed being cheaper than recreational, and thus undercutting rec because it's so easy to get a med card, is there some chance that CO (and maybe CA post-2016) will greatly tighten up the standards for a med card? Something like "no more scrips for anxiety, backaches, etc. Your happy rear end can pay retail for fully-taxed weed down at the cornershop." It will probably be an issue in the future but it sounds like they make enough revenue now that it's good enough to let it be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Given the whole thing about CO medicinal weed being cheaper than recreational, and thus undercutting rec because it's so easy to get a med card, is there some chance that CO (and maybe CA post-2016) will greatly tighten up the standards for a med card? Something like "no more scrips for anxiety, backaches, etc. Your happy rear end can pay retail for fully-taxed weed down at the cornershop." I doubt it. The Prescription drug system, and healthcare in general is so broken, that I can't imagine anyone anywhere caring that much. Maybe in the most extreme example where the vast majority of marijuana users are medical, such that retail effectively doesn't exists, but even in that case I'm not sure any politician could speak out and anger an industry that was that entrenched.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I doubt it. The Prescription drug system, and healthcare in general is so broken, that I can't imagine anyone anywhere caring that much. I need untaxed medicinal lager for my anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Kevin Sabet complaining that the pro cannabis lobby have all the money.quote:“They have money and we don’t.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...d6ed_story.html How much has your side already spent on cannabis prohibition, Kevin? KingEup fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Kevin Sabet complaining that the pro cannabis lobby have all the money. Spending money in order to keep spending money putting people in jail isn't a profitable endeavor? Who could've thought?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
I'll give you an infinite number of guesses who's been getting ticketed most for smoking in public...quote:About 36 percent of those ticketed were African-Americans, who are 8 percent of Seattle's population according to the 2010 census. About 46 percent of those ticketed told police they lived in a homeless shelter, transitional housing or had addresses associated with homeless services.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'll give you an infinite number of guesses who's been getting ticketed most for smoking in public... Holy Moley! I can't believe that discretionary law-enforcement is applied in such a manner. Knocks my socks off I tells ya.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
 Today a few DC groups banded together and got about 40 people to show up at the office of Andy Harris (R-MD). The guy who is tacked on a House budget rider (unlikely to clear the Senate) prohibiting DC from using fed or local funds to loosen marijuana law. Ever since this started there have been a bunch of jokes about "if Harris wants to run DC he should run for Council" and the like, which has gotten Harris ornery and saying arguably true but optically poor things like "in the federal enclave, then Congress is your local legislature." People made some jokes about calling or emailing Harris's office with complaints about potholes, trash pickup, and the like. Then after some Twitter strategizing a bunch of us went down to the Longworth building in front of his office to file our petty local issues. Kinda silly political theater, but it got a lot of media coverage, people had a good time, Capitol Police were reasonably chill as long as we kept the volume down, left the middle of the hallway clear, and didn't wave signs. Here's one decent WaPo piece on it: Protesters press Md. Rep. Andy Harris to address more piddling D.C. concerns HuffPo went with the much more dramatic: Pot Activist Raises Specter Of Armed Revolt, Is Politely Asked To Leave GOP Lawmaker's Office
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Is that really what he said? Kinda stupidquote:The civility of the protest was briefly thrown into question when Adam Eidinger, a leader of the pending effort to legalize marijuana in the District through a ballot initiative, suggested to Reigrut that congressional meddling in city affairs would lead to widespread civil disobedience and possible “terrorist groups” seeking greater D.C. autonomy. Clever idea for a protest though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Rand Paul is pushing legislation to federally legalize medical pot apparently:USNews posted:Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is seeking to blaze a path for marijuana reform in the Senate with legislation that would officially legalize state medical marijuana programs and whittle away at federal drug possession penalties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
That's clever, it appeals to the young crowd while simultaneously it solidifies the existing marijuana producers in their seat of power and makes it less likely for recreational legalization to pass. Oh and it still ensures that people go to prison for having marijuana. e: Oh *and* it's attached to a bill that's likely to fail? Hat trick for Mr. Paul. computer parts fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
The NYTimes:quote:Repeal Prohibition, Again quote:we believe that this is a big issue for the country — not because we think everyone should be smoking pot, but because while you were reading this blog post, there’s a good chance that, somewhere in the country, a young man — probably an African-American man — was arrested on a marijuana violation. Even if he is spared a prison term, that arrest is likely to severely harm, if not ruin, his life. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/some-background-on-our-high-time-series/?smid=fb-share KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The NYTimes: Of loving course this series of articles is called High Time. OF COURSE. Edit: "On Monday at 4:20 p.m. Eastern Time, Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, will be taking questions about marijuana legalization at facebook.com/nytimes."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Of loving course this series of articles is called High Time. OF COURSE. If it was alcohol it would be a pun related to that. Newspapers love puns. Weed isn't special in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Weed ought to be legal I smoked enough that I threw up once though, maybe it should be illegal on paper but allowed under the table??? Best Regards, RG (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
what
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
RichardGamingo posted:Weed ought to be legal  Also
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Everyones' favourite legalisation skeptic Mark Kleiman is promoting a 'demolition job' of the New York Times editorial: http://althouse.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/words-that-dont-appear-in-nyt-editorial.html
KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Holy Moley! I can't believe that discretionary law-enforcement is applied in such a manner. Knocks my socks off I tells ya. And from Seattle cops of all people!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Everyones' favourite legalisation skeptic Mark Kleiman is promoting a 'demolition job' of the New York Times editorial: http://althouse.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/words-that-dont-appear-in-nyt-editorial.html This is so dumb I feel stupider having read it. But he has a point that maybe the under 21 crowd will still provide enough money to fund an illegal black market and... Hahaha no, that part was stupid as hell too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
It's always some dumbass 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' type thing too. I have thought of the children. I think it's dumb to throw them in prison for weed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Stanos posted:It's always some dumbass 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' type thing too. Surprisingly, it appears that the controlled substances act may be amended to actually help children, and adults, with medical conditions that may be alleviated by marijuana. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/28/health/federal-marijuana-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Excerpt: The three-page bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act -- the federal law that criminalizes marijuana -- to exempt plants with an extremely low percentage of THC, the chemical that makes users high. If passed, it would be the first time that federal law allows any medical marijuana use. "No one should face a choice of having their child suffer or moving to Colorado and splitting up their family," said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pennsylvania, the bill's sponsor. "We live in America, and if there's something that would make my child better, and they can't get it because of the government, that's not right."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Oh, did anything come out of this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/30/dea-medical-marijuana-house-vote_n_5414679.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
So starting at 4:20 pm EST the New York Times has been doing a Q&A on their Facebook page about their editorial Let it never be said these guys don't have a sense if humor
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
ONDCP responds to Times editorial: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/28/response-new-york-times-editorial-marijuana-legalization Provides lots of reasons why you shouldn't use cannabis, no reasons why it should be illegal. KingEup fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Well, the theme of the piece is really that we can't view it (or substance abuse in general) as a law enforcement problem. That's pretty impressive progress.quote:The New York Times editorial board opined in its Sunday July 27, 2014 edition that the Federal government should legalize marijuana for adults aged 21 years and older. The New York Times editorial board compares Federal marijuana policy to the failure of alcohol prohibition and advocates for legalization based on the harm inflicted on young African American men who become involved in the criminal justice system as a result of marijuana possession charges. We agree that the criminal justice system is in need of reform and that disproportionality exists throughout the system. However, marijuana legalization is not the silver bullet solution to the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Well, the theme of the piece is really that we can't view it (or substance abuse in general) as a law enforcement problem. That's pretty impressive progress. By making it illegal you make it a law enforcement problem. It's mostly a bunch of doublespeak to handwave the status quo. "The system we have is bad, but there's no hard proof another system will be better, so we'll just keep thinking really hard about the issue."  Saying something is a health issue but making it illegal anyways is about as effective as making the flu illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 14:03
|
|
Xandu posted:Well, the theme of the piece is really that we can't view it (or substance abuse in general) as a law enforcement problem. That's pretty impressive progress. Not really. The whole response is almost entirely garbage. quote:We agree that the criminal justice system is in need of reform and that disproportionality exists throughout the system. However, marijuana legalization is not the silver bullet solution to the issue. Thanks for acknowledging the problem and not doing anything about it. There is no silver bullet to racism, and eliminating legal avenues through which non-whites and the non-affluent can be persecuted is probably a pretty good thing to do, especially when things like drug laws seem to be rooted at least in part in keeping the non-whites from getting to rowdy. In short, the problem is being acknowledged and then nothing is being done about it. We could allow some people to independently choose to take on a self-chosen disadvantage by consuming marijuana while reducing the unchosen disadvantage of being non-white in the U.S., but apparently that's just not acceptable. This is the core issue. No one has to consume marijuana, but they could choose to do so. In a liberal society, which the United States claims to be, this should be an okay thing, since consumption generally doesn't negatively affect others. That debate is wholly ignored. quote:While law enforcement will always play an important role in combating violent crime associated with the drug trade, the Obama Administration approaches substance use as a public health issue, not merely a criminal justice problem. So what are you doing about it? Drug trade is hardly the same as drug use, and let's be honest, how much of the marijuana trade is violent? I bet, relative to other drug markets where the cartels operate more prominently, violence is a lot more problematic. Thus, it's dishonest to associate violent crime and "the drug trade" with the marijuana legalization debate. quote:Marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana. This number increases to about 17 percent among those who start young and to 25-50 percent among people who use marijuana daily.[4] Okay. Lots of things are addictive. If this is a serious core issue for any administration, they have a whole hell of a lot of hoops to jump through to explain why marijuana is bad because its addictive, but other things aren't. If this is all about "weed is bad for kids," then fine. No rational individual should dispute that. We try to keep alcohol and drugs away from kids, we could do the same with marijuana. quote:Drugged driving is a threat to our roadways. Marijuana significantly impairs coordination and reaction time and is the illicit drug most frequently found to be involved in automobile accidents, including fatal ones. This is some shady wording right here. People, I suspect, will read this and assume that marijuana is as much as, if not more of a threat than, alcohol right now, and that's not the case. Alcohol is a massive roadway threat to, so if this is another real basis for keeping marijuana illegal, then alcohol really ought to go to. Or we could just expect everyone to not drive while impaired. Such a difficult concept, I know. quote:But we as policy makers cannot ignore the basic scientific fact that marijuana is addictive and marijuana use has harmful consequences. Increased consumption leads to higher public health and financial costs for society. Addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already result in much higher social costs than the revenue they generate. The cost to society of alcohol alone is estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained by its taxation. So now we're being rational and playing it all by the numbers now? If an administration is going to play "follow the science and data!" on this issue, I expect them to do the same thing with other issues, which means Obama had better be ready to change a whole lot of inefficient and costly policies. Except that's hard and keeping weed illegal is (relatively) easy, so they'll just go with that. If we're really trying to minimize "costs of society," then let's revisit the keeping non-violent drug users out of prison thing. Costs to society from marijuana consumption are chump change in the grand scheme of things. quote:the Obama Administration and the Office of National Drug Control Policy remain committed to drug use prevention, treatment, support for recovery, and innovative criminal justice strategies to break the cycle of drug use and associated crime. This approach is helping improve public health and safety in communities across the United States. "This approach is helping improve public health," is it? Really? These innovative strategies are happening right now? Please, tell me more about them and show me data about them. I would love to hear about how you're keeping black kids out of prison while also ignoring drug policies in the country. quote:Research also indicates that policies making drugs more available would likely not eliminate the black market or improve public health and safety, as promoted by marijuana advocates. This is wrong as far as I can tell. "Would likely not," is a far cry from "empirically demonstrated to not." I've seen some European countries where possession is at least decriminalized, and guess what? General consumption goes down. The black market doesn't disappear is dealing is still illegal, but it's not like that should shock anyone in any capacity. Similarly, drug availability generally does not cause an increase in acquisitive crime, so that shouldn't be a factor here in terms of safety. I also would like to know what "black market" means. If the black market is some guy in Colorado growing some poo poo in his basement and selling in to friends, then please, tell me why I should care because I'm really struggling. If it's a cartel/gang issue, then sure, but if distribution is legal, then the gangs and cartels literally have no reason to continue operating on an illegal basis. Prohibition should be really informative, and people seem to enjoy ignoring it. quote:Any discussion on the issue should be guided by science and evidence, not ideology and wishful thinking. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Drug legalization thread - guided by science and evidence, not ideology and wishful thinking
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
NYTimes response to the White House:quote:When the White House issued a statement last night saying that marijuana should remain illegal — responding to our pro-legalization editorial series — officials there weren’t just expressing an opinion. They were following the law. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is required by statute to oppose all efforts to legalize any banned drug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
quote:To the Editor: Apparently cannabis only springs into existence once legalised. I wonder if Gitlow would support a ban on people playing tennis because lots of people are injured playing College Football and ice hockey? Why would we possibly wish to add to the burden of injury from college football and ice hockey by allowing people to play a safer type of sport! Edit: Oh wow, Crazy Uncle Gitlow really is losing his mind: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/30/opinion/gitlow-marijuana-use/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 quote:And since only a small percentage of state prisoners are there for marijuana offenses, how much would we be saving in criminal justice costs? Gee... I don't know Mr Gitlow... quote:Outrageously long sentences are only part of the story. The hundreds of thousands of people who are arrested each year but do not go to jail also suffer; their arrests stay on their records for years, crippling their prospects for jobs, loans, housing and benefits. [...] KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
It's been a while since I looked at the numbers, but the estimates I remember had alcohol consumption drop about 30% in the two-three years after prohibition, then recover and steadily increase until they were actually higher than they were before Prohibition by the end of the period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'll give you an infinite number of guesses who's been getting ticketed most for smoking in public... Follow up. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Seattle-officer-reassigned-for-busting-too-many-pot-smokers-269302871.html Apparently it was just one guy. quote:The veteran officer, who was assigned to the West Precinct Bike Unit, personally wrote 66 of the 83 marijuana citations handed out this year, So that's encouraging also according to the article he is being investigated and has been assigned to desk duty 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
quote:To the Editor: quote:Much of the country – with the New York Times regrettably in the vanguard – is advocating the reckless addition of a third sport, Rugby, to the sports currently legal: College Football and Ice Hockey. What next legalised Roller Derby and Lacrosse? Drug warrior logic at its finest. Applied in any other context would get you laughed out of the building.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
KingEup posted:What next legalised Roller Derby and Lacrosse? It's funny how they never come to the only reasonable conclusion for the argument they're making, which is the prohibition of tobacco and alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Even if lowering drug use is taken to be good at face value, it's still really good if we can substitute even a small amount of alcohol use with marijuana use, since many fewer people will get in car accidents that kill people/themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Even if lowering drug use is taken to be good at face value, it's still really good if we can substitute even a small amount of alcohol use with marijuana use, since many fewer people will get in car accidents that kill people/themselves. So people don't smoke up and then drive?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:So people don't smoke up and then drive? the nhtsa posted:"Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort," the report's authors found at the time. "As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small." Not saying it's a great idea, but every study I've seen points to it having significantly less impact on performance than relatively low levels of alcohol or many common prescription drugs. Of course it depends on the person, which makes setting an ng/ml difficult. Lots of research is currently being done on the topic, though. Heck, congress was arguing about it yesterday. Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va posted:"No one is arguing that it's a good idea," Connolly said, "but the fact of the matter is that we don't know." moller fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
moller posted:Not saying it's a great idea, but every study I've seen points to it having significantly less impact on performance than relatively low levels of alcohol or many common prescription drugs. Of course it depends on the person, which makes setting an ng/ml difficult. Lots of research is currently being done on the topic, though. Heck, congress was arguing about it yesterday. I feel thats a testament to how severely alcohol affects driving more than a testament to how little cannabis can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
