|
mugrim posted:What is there to rule on? Federal law trumps state law, where is the legal ambiguity? He's talking about this I believe. http://grist.org/food/seeding-justice-monsanto-vs-soybean-farmer-case-hits-the-supreme-court/
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Not quite. http://www.theweedblog.com/meet-the-plaintiffs-of-asa-v-dea/ The americans for safe access website is apparently getting hammered right now, since I guess this happened today. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...1ApaQrTFgivHHew It looks like a long drawn out legalese version of "hey you fuckers we asked in 2002 for you to look at marijuana again and you ignored us loving pay attention!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Eh I disagree that polling is the dominating factor here. There's a lot more to this politically I think -- the institutions surrounding hyperincarceration and police militarization, justification for military intervention in Latin America, etc. Even if the country were polling like 75% in favor of legalization I doubt there'd be any change at all in federal posture surrounding this. IDK, the almighty dollar might speak at least for this drug in particular. There's still cocaine, heroin, and meth to around to justify the prison state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Hobelhouse posted:IDK, the almighty dollar might speak at least for this drug in particular. There's still cocaine, heroin, and meth to around to justify the prison state. Heroin, cocaine and meth are used way less frequently than marijuana though. There is over 5 times as many current marijuana users than users of those other 3 combined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:Heroin, cocaine and meth are used way less frequently than marijuana though. There is over 5 times as many current marijuana users than users of those other 3 combined. And you know, Heroin, Cocaine and Meth are all highly addictive drugs, 2 of which can and often do have absolutely debilitating effects on peoples bodies in extremely short timeframes. There's that too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Weed is such a great way to shovel people into the system, though. It's bulky (compared to other drugs), it smells very strongly, and it stays in your system far longer than any other substance. Those other drugs just don't really have those qualities, the cops are going to have trouble meeting quotas if legalization happens 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:Weed is such a great way to shovel people into the system, though. It's bulky (compared to other drugs), it smells very strongly, and it stays in your system far longer than any other substance. Those other drugs just don't really have those qualities, the cops are going to have trouble meeting quotas if legalization happens This type of tinfoil hattery needs to stop in this thread. Locking people up results in a net loss for both state and federal governments. Perhaps it helps to ensure that departments that enforce the laws and incarserate the offensers don't have their departments downsized, but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is legislation, and law enforcement agencies have jack all to do with that - with the rare exception of some testimony they might provide on the matter. The testimony that they usually provide is siding with everyone in this thread already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
JollyGreen posted:Locking people up results in a net loss for both state and federal governments. But not for the private prison industry, which is not a marginal case to be glossed over. Edit: vvvv Also that, as well as pure institutional/cultural inertia. vvvv mdemone fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Public institutions and agencies also aren't necessarily out to turn a profit, but you better believe that for the most part they'll do something that's a net loss to the taxpayer if it ensures their continued existence. Whether the issue at hand is drugs or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:52
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
mdemone posted:But not for the private prison industry, which is not a marginal case to be glossed over. Exhibit A Corrections Corporation of America's 2010 Annual Report: quote:demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. [PDF] http://goo.gl/MRcnx KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
mdemone posted:But not for the private prison industry, which is not a marginal case to be glossed over. They actually are a marginal case nation-wide (however awful they are) - not to mention the forces that made marijuana illegal and continue to keep it illegal existed well before 'for-profit prision' was even a concept. e: The reason that discussion annoys me so much is because the principal reason recreational use is still illegal is 'drugs r bad'. The only thing holding back the legalization movement is the motivation of people that support it; the intelligent people need to get out there, change public opinion, and protest. Spouting conspiracy theories that reinforce the idea that the system is fixed at every level is not only not true, its demoralizing to the effort. That is not at all the message that people need to be sending. JollyGreen fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Not that this was the plan from the start but the idea that law enforcement likes weed because it's an incredibly low barrier for loving with people isn't tinfoil hat nonsense, it's fairly basic. I mean look at the Stop and Frisk thing in NY if you need an example. I don't know if you can say that "drugs r bad" is the reason they're still illegal. That stigma contributes, of course, but there's also a huge amount of money involved and of course that's going to play a part as well.DeusExMachinima posted:Public institutions and agencies also aren't necessarily out to turn a profit, but you better believe that for the most part they'll do something that's a net loss to the taxpayer if it ensures their continued existence. Whether the issue at hand is drugs or not. This as well. Drug prohibition employs an incredible amount of people, in the public and the private sectors, and those groups are going to fight against anything that takes money off the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:the idea that law enforcement likes weed because it's an incredibly low barrier for loving with people isn't tinfoil hat nonsense, it's fairly basic Exhibit B: quote:As for who is being arrested now, Pat Slack, commander of the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, says it isn't usually people who are just out to get high. Call me crazy but I don’t think we should make things illegal just so that the police can use it as a pretense to arrest and detain people. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
JollyGreen posted:They actually are a marginal case nation-wide (however awful they are) - not to mention the forces that made marijuana illegal and continue to keep it illegal existed well before 'for-profit prision' was even a concept. The system doesn't need to be "fixed at every level"--whatever that even means--for there to be an entrenched (and even a popular) interest in maintaining an institution like the War on Drugs that plays a crucial role in post-Jim Crow disenfranchisement of minorities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Public institutions and agencies also aren't necessarily out to turn a profit, but you better believe that for the most part they'll do something that's a net loss to the taxpayer if it ensures their continued existence. Whether the issue at hand is drugs or not. This is a pretty big part I think. After decades of "tough on crime" legislation, politicians do not want to stick their neck out to be the soft on crime guy that tries to actually make something legal again. By and large, they'll support it's criminal status right until the moment it's politically viable to support decriminalization. It also doesn't hurt that police agencies profit from drug seizures. Drugs r bad certainly plays a role, but there are definitely other large factors in play that help keep the war on drugs running than the notion that they are bad for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:It also doesn't hurt that police agencies profit from drug seizures. Exhibit C - The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General's recent audit: quote:for the period of October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2011, the DEA and other federal agencies processed over 150,644 seized assets valued at about $9.2 billion of which $5.5 billion (60 percent) originated from seizures processed by the DEA and $3.7 billion (40 percent) originated from seizures processed by other federal agencies. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/a1240.pdf quote:Federal government will buy Ill. prison for $165M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDXYqUfvaVc KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
JollyGreen posted:This type of tinfoil hattery needs to stop in this thread. No, asset forfeitures are a major source of police department funding. In some cases they are the sole source of funding. quote:When I pulled the drill bit out there was pieces of money on it, currency. Inside the compartments we discovered 80 bundles of U.S. currency. He disavowed knowledge of everything," Tamez says. quote:In a rather creative study, Miller and Selva50 used covert participant observation to document asset forfeiture activities. One of the authors acted as a confidential informant for a city's undercover narcotics operation after he established a relationship with drug enforcement officials in the area. The results of the study were startling; agents were selective in their enforcement efforts, and the goal of seizing assets took precedence over the goal of taking narcotics out of circulation.† quote:If one peruses court documents, one will find cases with bizarre names such as The People v. One 1999 Buick. In criminal proceedings, the government must provide wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt before gaining the power to incarcerate an accused person. But local governments realize that, under civil forfeiture laws, they can seize houses and cars and cash based on a low standard of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
35 U.S.C. 161 Patents for plants. Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. re: weed patents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:35 U.S.C. 161 Patents for plants. Potato supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Asset forfeiture is awesome because you can spend it on whatever the gently caress you want. Like more drugs and hookers
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
One thing, if they seize a bunch of drugs how do they get money for it? It's not like they can go out and sell them.. can they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Why not, who's gonna stop them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Sad Panda posted:One thing, if they seize a bunch of drugs how do they get money for it? It's not like they can go out and sell them.. can they? That's why we need undercover police: quote:[officers] Ramos and Ferguson are accused of using lights and sirens to pull over the undercover officer. According to court documents, they took a bag containing 18 kilos of cocaine. They then handed the drugs off to a civilian named Alexi Matos, 38. http://www.khou.com/news/crime/HPD-officers-accused-of-stealing-drugs-appear-in-court-164716596.html See? The answer is always 'more police'. Prohibition is like the goose that laid the golden egg and just keeps on laying. KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Sad Panda posted:One thing, if they seize a bunch of drugs how do they get money for it? It's not like they can go out and sell them.. can they? They use these drugs to sell to criminals to get busts. So its nothing but money for them. Its great and they are not going to give it up. Even if 90% of the nation wanted it to be legal it will not be. They would just turn the nation into more of a police state. Nothing short of revolution will fix this problem(and a lot of other problems this nation faces).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Xeom posted:They use these drugs to sell to criminals to get busts. So its nothing but money for them. Its great and they are not going to give it up. Even if 90% of the nation wanted it to be legal it will not be. They would just turn the nation into more of a police state. Nothing short of revolution will fix this problem(and a lot of other problems this nation faces). Less common than you may think. The majority of the money comes from forfeiture. As you can expect a drug dealer will have a non-insignificant stash of cash stashed away, his car can be auctioned, so can his belongings. Think of it like a free hostile takeover. The police end up with all the detainee's assets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Less common than you may think. Also I'm pretty sure drugs use to pay informants are drugs that were never reported as seized in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Holy loving fuckballs. Colorado AND Washington. I need to loving move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Haha holy poo poo we (WA) just legalized weed. That's amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
gently caress ALL Y'ALL HOW MY NUT TASTE IMA SMOKE A SPLIFF AND EXHALE INTO THE FACE OF A NEWBORN WASHINGTON STATE HATERS
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Not to mention same sex marriage passed. American politics always leaves me full of despair and pessimism but for the next few days I can be happy. A tiny step in the fight against the prison-industrial complex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
Good job guys. Make the feds pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
YOU COULD SAY THAT THE PROPOSITION... PUFF, PUFF, PASSED
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:YOU COULD SAY THAT THE PROPOSITION... possibly the best post I've read on SA
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Don't sleep on Barry O
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
So proud to be a Washingtonian right now. Even my relatively red county (Spokane) passed 502. 30 days till I smoke carefree, gently caress da police 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
FOX News on Colorado and Washington: Don't break out the cheetos and goldfish right away. The federal government will fight it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
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 have no idea about Homeland Security and the UN but yea, the feds aren't gonna be down with this. Obama's not pro-weed. It should be interesting, though, we have 2 states that just voted to legalize it, you can't ignore that. No, you really shouldn't go make a big blunt and light up on the street, but there's really no telling how this'll play out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 06:39
|
|