|
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.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
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 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
In other WA weed news, the King Country prosecutor dropped all pending misdemeanor possession cases today: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Satterberg-dismisses-all-misdemeanor-marijuana-4024296.php#ixzz2BlZOssQm We're already saving  .
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
I'd bet no national company will get involved unless its legalized at the federal level. There's too much risk of hassles with the government. If you were CEO of Philip Morris, would you take the chance of the DEA busting you for distribution because they decided not to recognize Washington's legalization that day? The federal government could put a lot of pressure on companies to stay out of the business. What I'd imagine happens is states that legalize see some small to medium home-grown businesses spring up, and if there's federal legalization, the big consumer products companies swoop in and buy them up. (And then coastal hipsters start ridiculously overpriced "artisanal" brands.) As far as Philip Morris itself goes, they're owned by Altria, which is PM's attempt to diversify themselves. They also own a bunch of wines and used to own Kraft. It's not crazy that they'd end up buying a weed brand or six if it was legal, but I doubt there'd be much operational overlap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
One thing legalization legislation has going for it is its unlikely to become a partisan wedge issue. Conservatives love their tough-on-crime thing, but there are enough libertarians and states-rights types on the right that I doubt the right will come out really strongly against it. Xandu makes a good point, but what the representatives are proposing is new federal legislation; it does not, in principle, erode the supremacy of federal law. However, it could set an uncomfortable precedent for adding opt-outs to laws that should be uniform. Of course they can't touch the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
In Washington there was a good but not perfect correlation between counties that voted for Obama, for gay marriage, and for legalization. There is a clear urban-rural difference politically here, so I think this demonstrates that liberals were more likely to vote for legalization than conservatives did. However, several Romney counties did approve the initiative, and in both passing/Romney counties and failing/Obama counties, the difference on the initiative vote was usually smaller than on the presidential candidates, indicating that neither liberal support nor conservative opposition were unanimous. As for party endorsements, the state Democratic party endorsed the initiative, while the Republicans did not explicitly endorse a yes or no vote.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
One worry in Washington, I think, is that the federal government could sue the state in federal court to prevent the implementation of state regulation of marijuana production and sales. Presumably the theory would be that the state government would be violating federal law, not just not implementing it. I-502 requires a producer, distributor, or retailer have a license from the state liquor board, so if no one can get a license, no one can legally do those things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:If the girl's mom isn't telling her oncologist, that's a huge problem. But, it's one created by the weird grey-area status of medical marijuana, where some people are legitimate patients and many others are just people looking for a legal veneer over their high. Unfortunately, that leads to an awful lot of shady doctors who write weed prescriptions for anyone who comes to them with any issue, without any attempt to actually treat what could be a serious problem. It's a good idea to separate out recreational and medicinal use, and the best way to do that is through legalization. If you take away the incentive for recreational users to get "medical treatment," then people will take genuine medical treatment more seriously. This is all very true. Washington's medical marijuana law allowed naturopaths as well as doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Guess who everybody went to, and who showed up to do "examinations" at events like Hempfest. Also as it turns out, the medical marijuana industry was one of the few organized opponents of Washington's legalization initiative, because recreational users would no longer have to go through their monopoly to get legal weed. (The things money does to democracy.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
I am pleased to report that civilization in Seattle did not collapse today.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Makarov_ posted:A political PR / state lobbyist in Colorado has started showing up in the media, claiming to represent "businesses" concerned about employees showing up to work high, or using marijuana on the job. Her name is Sandra Hagen Solin, and her company is Capitol Solutions. Has anybody told her the election was a month ago?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I also view dry counties as a pretty good argument against keeping marijuana illegal overall. In a dry county, you can still have alcohol, but selling it is illegal, it makes it harder to obtain and all that. We could totally have the same thing if marijuana gets legalized nationwide, so places where people don't want it can ban the sale and feel all good about themselves for it without contributing to the whole prison complex stuff! I'm sort of wondering if, instead of a big showdown with the federal government, we get a patchwork of state-by-state actions that leave half the country legalized and the other half trying (and failing) to crack down. I could imagine California legalizing and Texas being a worse place to get caught in 5 years time. Even if the federal government legalized or rescheduled weed tomorrow, all those individual state laws would still be in place. It's possible the prison industry will focus more resources on elections in large (and therefore most profitable) states like California, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 06:20
|
|