|
http://www.wtvm.com/story/19770355/efforts-to-legalize-marijuana-in-three-states-are-no-jokequote:In November, voters in Colorado, Washington and Oregon will consider legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Here's the language: http://www.legalize2012.com/colorado.marijuana.legalization.language.html So, what the hell is going to happen if this measure actually passes? The DEA already raids medical marijuana dispensaries; this would make marijuana 'legal' in Colorado not just for Colorado citizens, but for anyone who happens to be in Colorado. I can't imagine the federal government just allowing this to happen without a significant fuss. And, of course, they won't say what they'd do: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/how-will-feds-react-if-co_n_1935489.html quote:Paul Roach, spokesperson for the DEA, said the DEA does not have a position on the amendment. If it passes, Roach said the DEA will continue to enforce federal drug laws. “We don’t see that changing,” he said. Personally, I expect that if this thing passes, it will EVENTUALLY lead to the end of federal enforcement, but not before some serious growing pains, probably involving a Supreme Court case. But I live on the other side of the country- can anyone who lives in Colorado or one of the other two states chime in and talk about what the situation is there? Does this look like it will actually pass?
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
I would likely move to Colorado More seriously, the result would be everything. People would stop going to jail for stupid possession charges in Colorado, but it'd still be a federally controlled substance for the time being. It might get other states to start passing their own legalization laws, and eventually the federal government would probably deschedule marijuana More likely, legalization/decriminalization fails again and nothing changes
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
I would hope this cause a greater level of public awareness of the truth of the issue, which would eventually cascade to other states and countries. I would love to jam it in the face of our retarded Minister of Health. gently caress these liars and gently caress all the harm that their wilful ignorance causes. You guys have my support, for what it's worth. Like ^^^ I would not be surprised to see the fuckholes in power screw over the public again though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
If it happens, Expect this crap to go to the Supreme Court. Hell, Obama is on record for defending the war on drugs, and Romney if he wins would most likely do the same. As long as it's legal though, expect a HUGE increase in traffic to Colorado and an increase in security in surrounding areas to curtail a spill over from those who think "Hell, I bought it legally, it should be legal here as well"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Coloradan in favor of legalization here. To answer your question directly, yes, it looks like Amendment 64 has a fair shot of passing. The polling lead is still up ten points. For those unfamiliar, Colorado currently allows possession of marijuana, and you can buy from dispensaries if you have a card. To get a card, you have to consult with a doctor and prove that you have a medical or psychological condition that marijuana would relieve. Dispensaries are a dime a dozen throughout the state—this is coming from somebody whose office is in the "Green Mile" of Denver, a freshly dubbed section of a major street that has at least three dispensaries per square mile. And they do pretty well. Federal government has shut down a few dispensaries, but make no mistake, the market is booming. Anybody from Denver will tell you that getting a medical card is pretty much a joke under current state law. Local papers advertise consultations, so to get a card, all you really have to tell the doctor is, "I have chronic migraines," or something similarly untestable. The only perceived problem from people with cards is that they're instantly in some form of database and can be targeted on a federal level. So right now, you have a rather large black market of people who have friends with cards, and some folks who do it the old fashioned independent dealer way. From where I'm standing, legalization doesn't have any strong downsides, and Colorado appears to be doing poo poo right: the first $40 million of the excise tax is required to go towards education, and the medical marijuana infrastructure is easily translated—hell, most dispensaries can just redecorate, maybe buy an espresso machine, and move on. But you're right, there's going to be a huge headache when it comes to regulation of a freshly legalized drug. We haven't even figured out any impaired driving penalties. I think that if this does end up being passed, it's going to get the snowball rolling. It's not the most specific statement, but there's a lot we can't know until Colorado has served as more of a testbed. That being said, I think it will have a noticeably positive effect on our economy. CU Boulder is practically the national landmark for 4/20 in the first place, and most people I know are working adults who still smoke in the evenings. f#a# fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:If it happens, Expect this crap to go to the Supreme Court. Hell, Obama is on record for defending the war on drugs, and Romney if he wins would most likely do the same.  The only thing that can probably stop a spread in decriminalization/increase in regulation is a concerted effort by interest groups with a lot at stake: namely alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
quote:A common argument among pro-legalization proponents is regulating marijuana would mean fewer kids were able to get it because they would need an I.D. for purchase, just like alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Are there really places where it's easier to find a dealer than find someone over 21 who just doesn't give a poo poo? Waaaaaaaay easier when I was in HS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
It depends I suppose. I had a brother above 21 when I was in high school so I never had to worry about it but my brother didn't have issues getting liquor in HS. He just went to a lovely part of town and got it there without getting carded. It usually depends on your network. I couldn't get weed except from a brother's friend but liquor was a 5 minute drive to the gas station away. I'll honestly be glad if it's legalized in my lifetime, I always preferred getting high over drinking because I tend to get hangovers easily and weed gives me a nice mellow feeling. I can't smoke now because of school but if it was legal I would once in a while. Stanos fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Seattle city resident here, echoing f#a#- around here all of those things are true as well. After the vote the A.G. will take this to court, and in time we'll probably see another States Rights Supreme Court case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
...But Cannabis already is basically legal in America. Unless you're black. I hope this passes, and when challenged by the Supreme Court, I hope it's fought for bitterly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
I really hope this passes. Does Colorado have a better chance of passing this poo poo than California? From what I remember California couldn't pass it because of (1 voter apathy and (2 terrible old white people living in the suburbs and other rural areas of California. If it does hopefully it'll start a chain reaction of other states legalizing as well, too bad I live in Texas, we'll probably be one of the last states to get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
roboshit posted:I really hope this passes. Does Colorado have a better chance of passing this poo poo than California? From what I remember California couldn't pass it because of (1 voter apathy and (2 terrible old white people living in the suburbs and other rural areas of California. California also had a massive anti-legalization push from those who had personal investment in keeping the semi-legality of medical marijuana going. I'm not sure if that lobby is as big in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
roboshit posted:I really hope this passes. Does Colorado have a better chance of passing this poo poo than California? From what I remember California couldn't pass it because of (1 voter apathy and (2 terrible old white people living in the suburbs and other rural areas of California. California was tracking positively until the extremely misleading ads about blitzed drivers were run. People decided to flip the gently caress out over the prospect of toking kids smashing-up their parents cars, even though we already tolerate this hazard with alcohol & testing isn't conclusive as regards the effects of Cannabis on driving (what testing has been done shows that drivers are impaired when high, but are also more cautious & are not as hazardous as drunk drivers or distracted drivers). Still, even California's law would've faced a Supreme Court challenge if it had passed, and I don't know that I like such a bill's chances in that arena. Not in the current climate of "WIN THE WAR ON DRUGS AT ALL COSTS!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
cheese posted:The only thing that can probably stop a spread in decriminalization/increase in regulation is a concerted effort by interest groups with a lot at stake: namely alcohol. How much is really at stake though? Personally I don't know any teetotal weed smokers, I can't imagine that being okay with weed but never touching alcohol is very common or that it would become much more common if weed were legal. Most people who like weed seem to enjoy both and which one they prefer just depends on the situation and their mood at the time. Torka fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:California also had a massive anti-legalization push from those who had personal investment in keeping the semi-legality of medical marijuana going. I'm not sure if that lobby is as big in Colorado. There seems to be a decent deal of that in Seattle, as well. Apparently the atmosphere towards the legalization initiative was very hostile at, of all places, Seattle's Hempfest this year. Weed in Seattle is already cheap, easy to get, and effectively legal (simple possession is the police department's official lowest priority and the city attorney automatically dismisses any charges for it) so I wonder if a combination of complacency among casual smokers and opposition from the medical marijuana industry is going to end up killing this attempt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Torka posted:How much is really at stake though? Personally I don't know any teetotal weed smokers, I can't imagine that being okay with weed but never touching alcohol is very common or that it would become much more common if weed were legal. Most people who like weed seem to enjoy both and which one they prefer just depends on the situation and their mood at the time. Anecdotal but I'll always take the green over the alcohol. This is probably not typical though as I can't stand the taste of pretty much every alcoholic drink, beer, wine or spirits. I'm curious if anybody knows if there are laws against wilfully misinforming the public that could be turned against the government?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
the new jazz posted:... I wonder if a combination of complacency among casual smokers and opposition from the medical marijuana industry is going to end up killing this attempt. That's what happened in '08 in California, largely (along with upticket complications). I think CO stands a better chance of breaking the ice, but we'll see. If they pass it, legalization will follow in every west coast state within five years, and that will break the back of cannabis-as-Schedule1 almost immediately. I'm sure at least the DOJ and DEA will breathe a sigh of relief that they can divert their limited resources to more serious issues (though they will bleat a bit for the cameras), so I doubt there will be significant federal blowback on the enforcement front, but the legislative and judicial circuses will probably take another decade to subside after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
How would the legalization of marijuana affect employment requirements? Could a company still discriminate against anyone who has consumed marijuana while letting people who drink work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
I just read my ballot primer today in complete shock. I hadn't looked too much into it (I'm a reformed smoker, in that, I just moved to Colorado a couple years ago and haven't made the right contacts yet, I swear I become friends with so many Christian Scientists, wtf), but thought it was another weak handed decriminalization type thing. Imagine my surprise when it outlines the licensing for retail marijuana shops, where you go in with naught but your ID proving your age to buy bud. Holy poo poo. LP97S posted:How would the legalization of marijuana affect employment requirements? Could a company still discriminate against anyone who has consumed marijuana while letting people who drink work? According to my ballot primer, yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Unless a state passes a law making pot smokers a protected class, then there's nothing preventing an employer barring them from employment. For example the owner of the company I work for hates smoking cigarettes and won't hire anymore people who smoke. Perfectly legal in the state of Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:45
|
|
My company has heated smoker shacks with benches for the smokers, and we don't do any drug testing. Some cool companies  EDIT: But what do I reasonably expect? The ATF to basically have paramilitary units blasting into the retail stores to send a message. We'll see though. Loving Life Partner fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
As far as Colorado, one of the "against" arguments in my ballot information pamphlet is that as it's a constitutional amendment, legalization could cause issues with employers discriminating against those that use it. Of course, the amendment also has a clause specifically stating that it would still allow employers to do that if they want, so it looks like that bit was anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
the new jazz posted:There seems to be a decent deal of that in Seattle, as well. Apparently the atmosphere towards the legalization initiative was very hostile at, of all places, Seattle's Hempfest this year. The dispensaries and green doctors are fighting it so they can keep their profits on giving anyone with a loving backache a medical authorization. I don't think that it's a perfect law by any stretch of the imagination but it's a step in the right direction. If more people were willing to accept an imperfect law, we could work out the kinks later and lay the groundwork for other states to turn the tide against the demonstrable failure of prohibiton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
How would anyone mount a Supreme Court challenge against this? I'm not understanding what relief the feds could request.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
cheapandugly posted:The dispensaries and green doctors are fighting it so they can keep their profits on giving anyone with a loving backache a medical authorization. This seems so ridiculous to me, at least on the part of the dispensaries. They already have the distribution channels set up, and legalization would only increase the market. Sure there'd be more competition too, but they are situated in such a way that they could be pretty dominant. But that would be too much ~work~ I guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:How would anyone mount a Supreme Court challenge against this? Nullification of federal law, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:This seems so ridiculous to me, at least on the part of the dispensaries. They already have the distribution channels set up, and legalization would only increase the market. Sure there'd be more competition too, but they are situated in such a way that they could be pretty dominant. But that would be too much ~work~ I guess I know a bunch of these people. They are nowhere near savvy enough to make that logical connection, and only see state-run weed stores as a threat to their small business. I've tried, and tried, and tried to explain to them why everyone including themselves stand to benefit from legalization, but it's like trying to convince the middle class that their tax dollars don't just disappear down a rabbit hole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
How does that work in the whole federalist system anyway? I know that federal law trumps state law when there's a conflict like this, but doesn't it then fall on the federal branch to enforce federal law in the absence of state enforcement? Or would, like, the local branch of the FBI or ATF be able to conscript local enforcement agents?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:How does that work in the whole federalist system anyway? 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. In the golden-goal scenario, all three states pass their legalization initiatives (a bit unlikely but not totally unrealistic given current polling), and the tide turns sharply after everyone generally realizes that the world isn't going to come to an end because of it. But I'm just going to watch CO for now, because their numbers are the most promising, despite the fact that Oregon's initiative is much better as a legalization paradigm. (Washington's is actually comparatively bad, if I remember the language correctly.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
This will be spun as a negative thing and in time will be reversed probably even by the state itself. I expect after this the crack down by the DEA will be even worse. Polls show that most Americans now wan't legalization. But a reminder that it does not matter what the public wants. The war against drugs is just to ingrained and to be honest, i don't see it leaving anytime soon. And it sucks because i love weed and ill have to stop smoking once I get my degree. I wouldn't expect legalization till about 2040, 2030 maybe if we are lucky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Xeom posted:I expect after this the crack down by the DEA will be even worse. Nope, they're perfectly happy to let SCOTUS deal with the fallout, because their funding is limited and there are bigger fish to fry, and they know it. That's not to say there won't be bluster, because there will be. But jackboot thugs are not going to raid CO's first legal shop, it just isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
LP97S posted:How would the legalization of marijuana affect employment requirements? Could a company still discriminate against anyone who has consumed marijuana while letting people who drink work? As long as it's federally illegal, yes. If the federal government legalizes medical marijuana, then employers can't discriminate against someone because they are on prescription medication if it doesn't affect job performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
They will wait for the shops to get nice big and fat and then raid them. Remember they are just after profits. Asset forfeiture my friend, asset forfeiture. Once these companies have enough money in the bank and enough weed that the DEA can make a good bit of money from raiding it, you best drat well believe they will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Xeom posted:They will wait for the shops to get nice big and fat and then raid them. Remember they are just after profits. Asset forfeiture my friend, asset forfeiture. Once these companies have enough money in the bank and enough weed that the DEA can make a good bit of money from raiding it, you best drat well believe they will. 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. mdemone posted:Nope, they're perfectly happy to let SCOTUS deal with the fallout, because their funding is limited and there are bigger fish to fry, and they know it. The DEA gets an incredible, absolutely ridiculously massive amount of money from the war on drugs, specifically the war on marijuana. I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on the profits of a massively succesful marijuana selling company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Xeom posted:They will wait for the shops to get nice big and fat and then raid them. Remember they are just after profits. Asset forfeiture my friend, asset forfeiture. Once these companies have enough money in the bank and enough weed that the DEA can make a good bit of money from raiding it, you best drat well believe they will. At that point they will have already lost the political process, just as gun-control proponents lost that process and are no longer a significant threat to firearm manufacturers and distributors. I see what you're saying, and my past experience tempts me to agree with you. But I don't think that would be either pragmatic or rational on the part of the DEA, and I think their leadership is clever enough to know that, no matter what they personally believe about the long game of legalization. It won't be happening in a vacuum. SCOTUS will hear it sooner rather than later, and that will decide everything, one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
mdemone posted:That's what happened in '08 in California, largely (along with upticket complications). I think CO stands a better chance of breaking the ice, but we'll see. If they pass it, legalization will follow in every west coast state within five years, and that will break the back of cannabis-as-Schedule1 almost immediately. I'm sure at least the DOJ and DEA will breathe a sigh of relief that they can divert their limited resources to more serious issues (though they will bleat a bit for the cameras), so I doubt there will be significant federal blowback on the enforcement front, but the legislative and judicial circuses will probably take another decade to subside after that. I think you mean '10. I always had a hunch that part of the reason it failed was low voter turnout (for mid-term elections). It didn't lose by much, but with lower turnout I would figure the people driven by fear are more likely to show up than the people who support it but hey I can easily get a medical cannibis card as-is so why bother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
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. Reminder that Obama's been raiding/closing medical marijuana dispensaries too  While the DEA legally could raid every shop in Colorado post-legalization I don't see that happening. I don't think the financial rewards would justify it, and it wouldn't even really send a message... people still run these businesses currently in CO and CA where it's in kind of a legal gray area, after full-on legalization there are going to be legit stores everywhere and taking down a handful of them would just look kind of silly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
mdemone posted:At that point they will have already lost the political process, just as gun-control proponents lost that process and are no longer a significant threat to firearm manufacturers and distributors. You best also believe the SCOTUS will vote against legalization lol.Simply put its way to profitable to keep drugs illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
JollyGreen posted:I think you mean '10. I always had a hunch that part of the reason it failed was low voter turnout (for mid-term elections). It didn't lose by much, but with lower turnout I would figure the people driven by fear are more likely to show up than the people who support it but hey I can easily get a medical cannibis card as-is so why bother. You're right; I knew something felt wrong when I typed that post. It was certainly the worst possible time to put it on the ballot, but CA activism is not known for shrewd decision-making, and CA voters shouldn't be trusted to advance any cause of social justice at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 05:16
|
|