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

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Muck and Mire
Dec 9, 2011

escape artist posted:

So this 60 year old guy is arguing with me that Homeland Security is going to enter these states and "crush" this based on a 60 year old UN treaty. Any more knowledgeable goons with thoughts on the issue?

I just told him Homeland Security and the UN have way, way more important things to do, and that I'll believe it when I see it.

Nah. Just nah. I mean the 60-year-old UN treaty part is dubious by itself but in general, no, the federal government has neither the desire nor the resources to prosecute all recreational weed smokers in 1/25 of the nation. They will probably continue to flex their muscles, give a really serious answer when asked about their stance on it, and the DEA might still prosecute dudes who make themselves very publicly rich from this... but nah, the feds are not going to outright "crush" this in any sense of that word.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003
Colorado legalizes weed!


oh god I'm so sorry, waldon canyon was terrible

Super Joe
Jun 22, 2012

I'm sorry for all the trouble I've caused.
I posted this in TCC, but I think it's pretty appropriate here, too:

:thurman:

MikeRabsitch
Aug 23, 2004

Show us what you got, what you got
In other news, unemployment hits a new high in Colorado and Washington when all companies in those states decide to randomly drug test their employees this week. :v:

showbiz_liz
Jun 2, 2008

Knightmare posted:

In other news, unemployment hits a new high in Colorado and Washington when all companies in those states decide to randomly drug test their employees this week. :v:

More like unemployment hits a new high in Colorado and Washington when every unemployed stoner in America buys a Greyhound ticket tomorrow morning

extremebuff
Jun 20, 2010

Knightmare posted:

In other news, unemployment hits a new high in Colorado and Washington when all companies in those states decide to randomly drug test their employees this week. :v:

But if marijuana is legalized, won't you not get in trouble for having it in your system? I mean they don't test for nicotine and alcohol.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

showbiz_liz posted:

More like unemployment hits a new high in Colorado and Washington when every unemployed stoner in America buys a Greyhound ticket tomorrow morning

Ski season 2012-2013 will be special.

GrumbleGrumble
Jul 11, 2004

Bobnumerotres posted:

But if marijuana is legalized, won't you not get in trouble for having it in your system? I mean they don't test for nicotine and alcohol.

Many hospitals do test for nicotine, so it wouldn't be completely unprecedented depending on what type of work it is.

thats not candy
Mar 10, 2010

Hell Gem

Bobnumerotres posted:

But if marijuana is legalized, won't you not get in trouble for having it in your system? I mean they don't test for nicotine and alcohol.

Employers can if they want. There are no employee protections for weed in Colorado. You can be fired right now for being a cancer patient with a card, and they'll be able to drug test you tomorrow too even though it's now legal for everyone.

Hell in some states, they can legally fire you for consuming nicotine.

BUSH 2112
Sep 17, 2012

I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon.

thats not candy posted:

Hell in some states, they can legally fire you for consuming nicotine.

Holy poo poo, that's insane but not really surprising. You really don't even have to look it up to know what states would be on that list.

The Maroon Hawk
May 10, 2008

In fact, the amendment contains specific language clarifying that it doesn't prohibit companies from prohibiting marijuana usage in its employees, even in their own private time.

Kind of hosed up, but baby steps I guess? :shobon:

Not to mention the only tests you'd really have to be concerned about are pre-employment tests and accident-related tests. Drug tests are expensive so random unprovoked drug tests aren't common.

rscott
Dec 10, 2009

BUSH 2112 posted:

Holy poo poo, that's insane but not really surprising. You really don't even have to look it up to know what states would be on that list.

You'd be surprised. Being a smoker is a protected class in like 18 states but its actually spread out, Oklahoma has laws on the book for example and the tobacco states have them too IIRC.

BRB MAKIN BACON
Mar 22, 2007

I am Tuxedo Mask.
Russell Wilson, look into your heart and find the warrior within.
It is your destiny.

~:Seattle Seahawks:~
cocaine 2016

extremebuff
Jun 20, 2010


Hey man, baby steps. Let's focus on weed since it's proven to be less harmful than currently legal drugs. We'll then use all the good it did to legalize a drug, to legalize other drugs.

mod sassinator
Dec 13, 2006
I came here to Kick Ass and Chew Bubblegum,
and I'm All out of Ass
I'm happy this passed in two states so people won't look at it as some regional fluke. In another few years I wonder how many other states will be proposing similar ballot initiatives. California should definitely try again. Maybe some of the more independent states like Montana or New Hampshire too?

Doctor Shitfaced
Feb 13, 2012
Really happy that I got to vote for this in Washington and that it passed. My only concern is the federal government finding a way to completely shoot it down. How likely do you guys reckon that's going to be the case?

cheapandugly
Jul 6, 2007
The federal government will try to stop both Washington and Colorado from implementing their new laws. That's half the point, to show the rest of the states the futility of continuing prohibition in the face of people realizing that marijuana is not some ridiculous evil and that no one needs to be imprisoned for possessing it. I can only hope that we continue the trend nationwide during the next couple of elections until the drug war has ended completely.

Job Truniht
Nov 7, 2012

MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

GrumbleGrumble posted:

Many hospitals do test for nicotine, so it wouldn't be completely unprecedented depending on what type of work it is.

It's going to be a very expensive crackdown for the companies.

The_Franz
Aug 8, 2003

mod sassinator posted:

I'm happy this passed in two states so people won't look at it as some regional fluke. In another few years I wonder how many other states will be proposing similar ballot initiatives. California should definitely try again. Maybe some of the more independent states like Montana or New Hampshire too?

Montana just passed a ballot measure to ban medical marijuana by a fairly decent margin. Don't hold your breath.

BRB MAKIN BACON
Mar 22, 2007

I am Tuxedo Mask.
Russell Wilson, look into your heart and find the warrior within.
It is your destiny.

~:Seattle Seahawks:~

The_Franz posted:

Montana just passed a ballot measure to ban medical marijuana by a fairly decent margin. Don't hold your breath.

Oh poo poo, well now I need to cancel my totally real planned trip to Montana.

cheapandugly posted:

The federal government will try to stop both Washington and Colorado from implementing their new laws. That's half the point, to show the rest of the states the futility of continuing prohibition in the face of people realizing that marijuana is not some ridiculous evil and that no one needs to be imprisoned for possessing it. I can only hope that we continue the trend nationwide during the next couple of elections until the drug war has ended completely.

There seems to be an incentive for states to do so; Washington's law is going to tax the gently caress out weed.

Washington Voter Guide posted:



The Effect of the Proposed Measure, if Approved

...

Without violating state law, people over age 21 could grow, distribute, or possess marijuana, as authorized under various types of licenses. People could only buy limited amounts of marijuana at a time, and possession of marijuana by people over age 21 in amounts that do not exceed that limit would not violate state law. It would still be a crime to grow, distribute, or possess marijuana except by following the licensing and other requirements of this measure.

...

It would cost $250 to apply for a license. It would also cost $1,000 every year to get and keep a license. A separate license would be required for each location. Locations could not be within 1,000 feet of any school, playground, recreation centers, child care center, park, transit center, library, or game arcade. Producers and processors could not have any financial interest in any licensed marijuana retailer.

...

Licensed marijuana retailers could not sell any products other than marijuana and items used to store or use marijuana. Licensed marijuana retailers could not allow people under age 21 on their premises. Signs posted by licensed marijuana retailers that are visible to the public would be limited in size and content. No marijuana could be displayed in a way that is visible from a public place.

...


This measure would require licensed producers and processors to submit marijuana samples to an independent lab for regular testing. The state would receive test results. Marijuana that does not satisfy state standards would be destroyed.



Sales of marijuana would be taxed. :siren: Marijuana excise taxes, in the amount of 25% of the selling price, would be collected on all sales of marijuana, at each level of production and distribution. Sale by a marijuana producer to a marijuana processor would be subject to a 25% tax. A sale by the processor to a retailer would be subject to an additional 25% tax. Sales of marijuana by a retailer would be subject to an additional 25% tax. State and local sales taxes would also apply to retail sales of marijuana. :siren:

This could be a lot of money. I'm very interested to see the impact it has on the prison-industrial-governmental complex.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

BRB MAKIN BACON posted:

Oh poo poo, well now I need to cancel my totally real planned trip to Montana.


There seems to be an incentive for states to do so; Washington's law is going to tax the gently caress out weed.


This could be a lot of money. I'm very interested to see the impact it has on the prison-industrial-governmental complex.

I have no trouble predicting that these laws will loosen up over time. Foot's in the door, and that's what's important.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

BRB MAKIN BACON posted:

I'm very interested to see the impact it has on the prison-industrial-governmental complex.
I doubt that theyll really flinch until they lose their haven-state of CA.

Alpha Mayo
Jan 15, 2007
hi how are you?
there was this racist piece of shit in your av so I fixed it
you're welcome
pay it forward~
Colorado voted against this in 2006, 59 to 40. I am surprised public opinion changed so drastically in 6 years

Burn Zone
May 22, 2004



Meta Ridley posted:

Colorado voted against this in 2006, 59 to 40. I am surprised public opinion changed so drastically in 6 years

In 2006, we had a two term Republican president with two wars going on and gays still couldn't be in the military.

Things change quickly.

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

BRB MAKIN BACON posted:

There seems to be an incentive for states to do so; Washington's law is going to tax the gently caress out weed.


This could be a lot of money. I'm very interested to see the impact it has on the prison-industrial-governmental complex.

Vertical integration :smug:

But yeah, besides finally being a step in the right direction for the war on drugs, I'm also mainly interest in seeing how the politics and economics work out from here. Is Colorado's taxation & regulation plan known yet? This could make for an interesting compare & contrast paper if they take a different approach.

ChlamydiaJones
Sep 27, 2002

My Estonian riding instructor told me; "Mine munni ahvi türa imeja", and I live by that every day!
Ramrod XTreme

Meta Ridley posted:

Colorado voted against this in 2006, 59 to 40. I am surprised public opinion changed so drastically in 6 years

This law was well written and that one wasn't. Also running a ballot measure that increases income for the state during financial iffy times using revenue from something that MANY people perceive as a vice that they don't partake of was strategically perfect. We have it now, let's see if we can keep it. I'm really torn about going to a dispensary today though. I spent the evening with my city counselor and her husband who's a county commissioner and we talked about implementing the law for quite a while.

The city already has a panel of experts in place to set a THC limit for intoxication because the law points at local control. This will be screwed up all over the place because Colorado ALWAYS starts with local control and then magically discovers that people can travel from one local to another and THEN passes a law regulating everything equally.

The other problem is the tax provision. We have TABOR which says that all tax changes must pass a vote by the people. This measure creates the requirement of a tax so that part will play out in the courts. Someone probably has a brief written already against implementing the tax and someone else already has a repeal amendment written for 2013 based solely on the inability of the state to implement dope sales BECAUSE there wasn't a parallel bill creating the tax. Like I said; I hope we can keep this law.

ejstheman
Feb 11, 2004
Two 25% taxes are an insignificant expense, compared to the combined margins of the dozen back-market operators that touch your weed on its way to you now. I mean, take some other dried plant that isn't illegal (not saffron; something that can be grown locally and is equally easy to process) and look at how much it costs, and then add 50% to that number. That's slightly lower than the equilibrium price of weed under the new regime. I bet it still isn't nearly as expensive as weed is now. I wish this stupid "tax the gently caress out of it" meme would go away.

Edit: For example, I bought an ounce of dried lavender blossoms at this hippie store for like $5. If it were taxed up to $7.50, that would still be a drat sight cheaper than buying an ounce of weed. You can see local prices for those in High Times magazine. I haven't looked recently, but they're on the order of a few hundred dollars. Even if weed is ten times harder to bring to the customer than lavender blossoms, it's still less than half as expensive on fundamentals, with the tax, than weed is now.

ejstheman fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Nov 7, 2012

Tesla Was Robbed
Oct 4, 2002
I AM A LIAR
People will look at the 25% each level thing and freak, not realizing that there's an ~100% tax at each level in the black market. 25% VAT will bring down the cost to the end user along with the drug tourism and requisite border confiscation.

Now we get to spend time talking about how it's no longer the will of the people, but of the lawyers and courts, and so fraught with traps and trips that are there to almost exclusively block any will-of-the-people while allowing will-of-the-company and will-of-the-executive to skip merrily along its/their way.

HOW HIGH THE MOON
Aug 26, 2007

Tesla Was Robbed posted:

People will look at the 25% each level thing and freak, not realizing that there's an ~100% tax at each level in the black market. 25% VAT will bring down the cost to the end user along with the drug tourism and requisite border confiscation.

Not to mention remove (or at least severely lower) a massive source of income for some criminal organizations.

RichieWolk
Jun 4, 2004

FUCK UNIONS

UNIONS R4 DRUNKS

FUCK YOU

Cocaine is already more legal than marijuana (Schedule II). Let that sink in: the government says that there is more medical use for cocaine (and less risk of addiction/harm) than marijuana.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

ejstheman posted:

Two 25% taxes are an insignificant expense, compared to the combined margins of the dozen back-market operators that touch your weed on its way to you now. I mean, take some other dried plant that isn't illegal (not saffron; something that can be grown locally and is equally easy to process) and look at how much it costs, and then add 50% to that number. That's slightly lower than the equilibrium price of weed under the new regime. I bet it still isn't nearly as expensive as weed is now. I wish this stupid "tax the gently caress out of it" meme would go away.

Edit: For example, I bought an ounce of dried lavender blossoms at this hippie store for like $5. If it were taxed up to $7.50, that would still be a drat sight cheaper than buying an ounce of weed. You can see local prices for those in High Times magazine. I haven't looked recently, but they're on the order of a few hundred dollars. Even if weed is ten times harder to bring to the customer than lavender blossoms, it's still less than half as expensive on fundamentals, with the tax, than weed is now.

Tobacco would be a better dried plant to look at, when you buy tobacco most of the money you pay for it is going to the government.

Doughbaron
Apr 28, 2005
Wouldn't the Feds interfering with the implementation of legalization within state borders be a clear 10th amendment violation that would be easily defensible in court, or am I living in a judicial fantasy world where the constitution even matters here?

Base Emitter
Apr 1, 2012

?

Doughbaron posted:

Wouldn't the Feds interfering with the implementation of legalization within state borders be a clear 10th amendment violation that would be easily defensible in court, or am I living in a judicial fantasy world where the constitution even matters here?

These days the commerce clause in the Constitution is interpreted very broadly. Since drug trade usually takes place across state borders, the federal government has jurisdiction over it.

Doughbaron
Apr 28, 2005

Base Emitter posted:

These days the commerce clause in the Constitution is interpreted very broadly. Since drug trade usually takes place across state borders, the federal government has jurisdiction over it.

Except legalization in a state would allow for full production, distribution and possession to all take place within state borders. Before the feds could claim that any marijuana operation necessitated international and state border crossings, but the Colorado law would help create a self-contained marijuana market, negating commerce clause justifications. I would think that would be easily defensible in court, but again who knows.

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


RichieWolk posted:

Cocaine is already more legal than marijuana (Schedule II). Let that sink in: the government says that there is more medical use for cocaine (and less risk of addiction/harm) than marijuana.

Well you see, it's the difference between a rich white man's drug and a drug that "others" use. It would be loving beautiful if we got some drug rescheduling out of this. The response from the right wing would be something to behold as well.

BLACK MAN LEGALIZES MARIJUANA

Base Emitter
Apr 1, 2012

?
I'm not arguing in favor of that interpretation, but that's likely how its going to come down. The Federal government claims very broad powers under the commerce clause and the courts go along with it. If somebody can buy weed in your vertically integrated shop and then sell it in another state even if you're not involved, the feds can get involved.

In practical terms, a paper in Colorado noted (sorry, going by memory I don't have a link) that the feds cracked down more on California than other states on medical marijuana because CA was less regulated than other medical MJ states, and which tended to result in illicit trade across state lines.

My guess is that now the pressure's off Obama for a 2nd term, and that legalization made so much progress in this election, the government's really going to have to take a step back and reevaluate what the political implications are. Ideally, they decide to deprioritize enforcement in legal states and focus their efforts on smuggling across the US-Mexico border, and let expanding state legalization reduce demand. I'm guessing you won't see federal legalization until a lot more states move, and they probably won't reduce marijuana's place on the schedule while they can use that as a stick to beat big smugglers with.

^^^ e: there's also arguments for medical uses of MDMA (psychiatric) and heroin (pain management in terminal patients). But one thing at a time.

Base Emitter fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 7, 2012

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Base Emitter posted:

I'm guessing you won't see federal legalization until a lot more states move, and they probably won't reduce marijuana's place on the schedule while they can use that as a stick to beat big smugglers with.

Bang. And the rest of the west coast will move within a few years IMO, after a few percentage points manage to notice that Colorado and Washington didn't descend into utter chaos.

Farmer Crack-Ass
Jan 2, 2001

this is me posting irl

Doughbaron posted:

Except legalization in a state would allow for full production, distribution and possession to all take place within state borders. Before the feds could claim that any marijuana operation necessitated international and state border crossings, but the Colorado law would help create a self-contained marijuana market, negating commerce clause justifications. I would think that would be easily defensible in court, but again who knows.

Read up on Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich. Growing your own weed, for your own consumption and nobody else's? Well, since weed is traded nationally, and since growing your own means you'll purchase less from the market, you're affecting interstate commerce! :suicide:

Spoondick
Jun 9, 2000

Base Emitter posted:

^^^ e: there's also arguments for medical uses of MDMA (psychiatric) and heroin (pain management in terminal patients). But one thing at a time.

I think it's pretty funny that MDMA was discovered and patented by Merck but forgotten in some boxes in a basement for decades, and Heroin was patented and marketed by Bayer as a non-addictive cough suppressant.

It doesn't really make sense to reschedule marijuana CII through CV though because of the inherent dosage problems with smoking plants. Descheduling is where it's at, since we're likely to never see federal-level legalization any time soon.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Spoondick
Jun 9, 2000

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Read up on Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich. Growing your own weed, for your own consumption and nobody else's? Well, since weed is traded nationally, and since growing your own means you'll purchase less from the market, you're affecting interstate commerce! :suicide:

If you build a Fallout-style vault, lock yourself in it and avoid all contact with humanity for 20 years, you're still violating interstate commerce by growing marijuana in the vault because what if everyone else locked themselves in a vault for 20 years and grew marijuana in it too?

  • Locked thread