|
It's funny, my girlfriend (32) didn't drink a drop before 2 years ago. Last weekend, at a friends house party, she drank WAY too much and while writing in the depths of being miserable, she wondered how alcohol was legal while weed wasn't. Weed doesn't make you fall down stairs. Weed doesn't make you puke your guts out for an hour. Weed doesn't make you feel like death incarnate the next day. Weed doesn't make you beat your chest in a show of manliness and start fights. Yet it's illegal, while alcohol is legal and glorified. And if you smoked weed in the past 30 days you will fail new-hire or random drug tests. But you could be a belligerent drunk that beats his wife and kids and have no problems. Our oligarchy that made it illegal can go suck a black cock.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 05:31 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 19:02 |
|
Even if the Feds could still go after people, wouldn't this still be a big positive? Cops in the state wouldn't be arresting people for it. It would require the Feds to do it and they likely wouldn't be interested in busting up someone for having a few joints in his pocket. Mind you my knowledge of how the two work with each other is limited, but wouldn't this be a net positive?
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 05:35 |
|
Xeom posted:You best also believe the SCOTUS will vote against legalization lol.Simply put its way to profitable to keep drugs illegal. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but: a.) The SCOTUS probably wouldn't even want to hear the case. b.) If they did, they would point out that no matter how rad a eighth of sour diesel smells, federal law still trumps state law. So the federal government is still well within its right to throw the book at every last store, distributor, and farmer that participates (that they feel like prosecuting). c.) The fed can't force the states to get involved in enforcing their federal laws. But they can play rough and just threaten (or really go ahead and do) to cut funding for highways, infanstructure, new mililitary bases in the state, so on and so forth until the state legislature gets back in line. Thats politics bitch. d.) Would do nothing of the above, because the medical marijuana program in Cali is a complete joke as is. And they're doing nothing about it. Yes, there are a few cases here where they knock over a dispensery and some guys in black get to go show off their fancy new riot shields. But its really telling that they just don't give a poo poo, because they could put a stop to EVERYTHING if they wanted. Marijuana is going to be remain schedule one for a long, long time. The US has agreed to international treaties that make weed illegal (I had to look it up). It has nothing to do with 'CORPORATIONS CONTROL EVERYTHING' - its entirely due to the fact that legalization would soak up an enormous amount of political effort and frankly its just much easier to ignore the law than to repeal it. That's how the Dutch do it at least. And you can go to a coffeeshop there and grab an eight of weed and an eight of shrooms without an issue.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 05:38 |
|
Another Colorado goon checking in, from the Northern part of the state (Greeley, to be specific). I'm pretty optimistic about the amendment's chances of passing; a large number of people I've talked to are fully in favor of it, and that's people of all ages, careers, social classes, and walks of life. Plus, there seems to be a VERY large effort to get us college students registered to vote (at least at my school, dunno about CU or CSU or others but I'd imagine it's the same there) and I think it's a pretty fair assumption that this amendment will find a lot of support in that particular demographic, even among non-smoking students. Here's what I see happening if it passes: Nothing will change usage-wise. Those who want to smoke are probably already smoking, so although we might see some people try it just because it's legal, I doubt it'll be a big number. Given the DEA's penchant for raiding medical marijuana dispensaries lately, I would expect them to make a show out of carrying out more raids in the first few weeks/months after the measure passes, after which the raids will taper off after the show of force is done. I'd expect that this measure will probably be challenged in court almost immediately, and bounce back and forth in the judicial system all the way to the SCOTUS; in the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised if legalization is in limbo in the meantime, with injunctions and poo poo like that. As for what happens when it makes it to the Supreme Court? Who knows. We'll see. One thing to also bear in mind is that the measure only lays the framework for retail marijuana sales, and each municipality has to draw up their own laws and regulations surrounding its sale; we won't see medical dispensaries turning into retail dispensaries overnight, although I would imagine a fair amount of towns here already have a general idea of what they want to do so it may not take long to see these laws being enacted. The only thing that will change right when it goes into effect (which, from what I understand, is immediately upon the governor declaring that the bill has passed) is that it will be legal for personal possession and consumption in private. I really think the primary goal of these bills is more to stir the waters and get the country seriously talking about legalization; anybody that wants to smoke already does, especially so in states like CO where it's decriminalized and enforcement is a joke. Here's hoping it works! Also, f#a# posted:and Colorado appears to be doing poo poo right: the first $40 million of the excise tax is required to go towards education, Almost. The first $40 million must go to the school construction fund to be used to build new schools. I'd much rather have seen it go directly towards the education budget, and maybe we can work to get that changed later if it passes, but for now I'll take $40 million for new schools over having it just tossed into the general fund. (CO goons, if I'm wrong about anything in this post, feel free to correct me.)
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 05:39 |
|
Hahahaah like the US would ever pay the slighest amount of attention to any international treaty it didn't want to.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 05:40 |
I guess from a profit perspective, it's more beneficial to the fed to swoop in and seize everything in the name of federal law than to let a tax trickle into state coffers and somewhat benefit them at some point in the future. Is there like a P&L report for the DEA or federal enforcement arms? That poo poo would be fun to look over.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 05:42 |
|
e: Nevermind, beaten to it.
OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 11, 2012 |
# ? Oct 11, 2012 06:00 |
|
OneEightHundred posted:They can fire you for eating a Snickers bar if they want to. Product usage isn't a protected status, whether it's legal or not. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect elevating smokers to a protected class. It's illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty. State Year Code California 2005 CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6 Colorado 1990 CO REV. STAT. ANN § 24-34-402.5 Connecticut 2003 CT GEN. STAT. ANN. § 31-40s District of Columbia 1993 D.C. CODE ANN. § 7-1703.3 Illinois 1987 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5 Indiana 2006 IND. CODE §§ 22-5-4-1 et seq. Kentucky 1994 KY REV. STAT. ANN. § 344.040 Louisiana 1991 LA REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:966 Maine 1991 ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, § 597 Minnesota 1992 MINN. STAT. § 181.938 Mississippi 1994 MISS. CODE ANN. § 71-7-33 Missouri 1992 MO. REV. STAT. § 290.145 Montana 1993 MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314 Nevada 1991 NEV. REV. STAT. § 613.333 New Hampshire 1991 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:37-a New Jersey 1991 N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:6B-1 et seq. New Mexico 1991 N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-11-1 et seq. New York 1992 N.Y. [LABOR] LAW § 201-d North Carolina 1991 N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-28.2 North Dakota 1993 N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-02.4-01 et seq. Oklahoma 1991 OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, § 500 Oregon 1989 OR. REV. STAT. §§ 659A.315 & 659A.885 Rhode Island 2005 R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-20.10-14 South Carolina 1991 S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-1-85 South Dakota 1991 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-4-11 Tennessee 1990 TENN. CODE ANN. § 50-1-304 Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902 West Virginia 1992 W. VA. CODE § 21-3-19 Wisconsin 1991 WIS. STAT. §§ 111.31 et seq. Wyoming 1992 WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 27-9-101 et seq. So yeah, actually it is in a lot of places!
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 06:11 |
|
Yeah, if weed smokers aren't a protected class then I wouldn't be too excited about legalization if smoking at home can still impact your professional life. It's disgusting that if I were to get hurt at work tomorrow and try to claim workman's comp then I'd be out of a job but a guy who drinks a handle of Wild Turkey a day and beats the poo poo out of his kids would be fine. Or if I were looking for a new job and I land one at a more conservative-minded place and they go oh look at this loving lazy pothead sorry kid.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 07:36 |
|
In most cases you lose your second amendment rights if you smoke weed, too. BATFE Form 4473 http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf is required for all public transfers of firearms and specifically asks if you're addicted to marijuana, and of course answering yes disqualifies you. In addition to this, states that require pistol purchase or ownership permits will ask about marijuana use as well, same goes for CCWs. Background checks are performed in all states that I know of that require permits, and any possession on your record will disqualify you. Of course you won't find a single word asking if you're an alcoholic, or if you're going to meander around town drunk with a pistol in your waistband. DUIs on your record? No problem, have an AR-15. And plenty of gun owners do mix alcohol and firearms, from personal experience living in the south. Whether you agree that people who smoke marijuana should be allowed to own firearms or not, the double standard is easily apparent here. Getting trashed and being irresponsible with firearms is macho and all-American, owning firearms and occasionally kicking back with a joint makes you a criminal and can pretty much destroy your life in the blink of an eye.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 08:29 |
|
roboshit posted:Yeah, if weed smokers aren't a protected class then I wouldn't be too excited about legalization if smoking at home can still impact your professional life. It's disgusting that if I were to get hurt at work tomorrow and try to claim workman's comp then I'd be out of a job but a guy who drinks a handle of Wild Turkey a day and beats the poo poo out of his kids would be fine. Or if I were looking for a new job and I land one at a more conservative-minded place and they go oh look at this loving lazy pothead sorry kid. Well it would still be better than the status quo. All that goes on now and as a kicker you can be sent to jail.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 08:30 |
|
rscott posted:Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect elevating smokers to a protected class. It's illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty. Jesus Christ, there are literally more states where it's illegal to fire someone for smoking than there are where it's illegal to fire someone for being gay.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 09:20 |
|
Isn't marijuana legal in Michigan? If I recall correctly Michigan State went to the feds directly and asked may enforce federal laws? The Fed said there was perfectly okay and every legitimate dealer was busted - by local and state law enforcement. In the theory legalization for states is awesome but you're still hosed on a federal level.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 11:43 |
|
Tab8715 posted:Isn't marijuana legal in Michigan? Medical Marijuana was approved in 08 iirc but nothing about straight legalization.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 14:03 |
|
computer parts posted:Nullification of federal law, essentially.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 15:50 |
|
twodot posted:Can you explain this, because it doesn't make any sense to me? The nullification cases I'm aware of are either federal law making demands of states (and states can't ignore those demands by passing laws) or states trying to preempt federal action. I don't see any standing to complain that Colorado is only arresting people for marijuana possession if they are under 21.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 16:44 |
|
whoredog posted:It's funny, my girlfriend (32) didn't drink a drop before 2 years ago. Last weekend, at a friends house party, she drank WAY too much and while writing in the depths of being miserable, she wondered how alcohol was legal while weed wasn't. Weed doesn't make you fall down stairs. Weed doesn't make you puke your guts out for an hour. Weed doesn't make you feel like death incarnate the next day. Weed doesn't make you beat your chest in a show of manliness and start fights. It's really tradition. Any study will show the morbidity and mortality ratio from Alchohol vs. Weed to be so outrageous as to be almost infinite. Detractors will say, of course, weed might make you dumb, lose short-term memory. But alchohol has those exact side-effect, and in higher numbers.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 17:23 |
|
computer parts posted:It's this one. Federal law states that a Schedule I drug, marijuana has no medical value and that it is illegal to make, possess, sell, etc it. By legalizing it, the states are saying that there actually is some value in it, and they're actually going to *tax* it as well, not just ignore federal law as is the status quo. I live in Washington, and our code seems to define our own scheduling which may be different from federal scheduling (the board may place not shall): quote:(a) The state board of pharmacy shall place a substance in Schedule I upon finding that the substance: twodot fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 11, 2012 |
# ? Oct 11, 2012 17:24 |
Thundercracker posted:Detractors will say, of course, weed might make you dumb, lose short-term memory. But alchohol has those exact side-effect, and in higher numbers. Not to mention marijuana has legitimate and possibly radically-positive medical uses, that have also been recognized and patented by the United States government despite its continuing status as Schedule 1.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 17:26 |
|
Benagain posted:Hahahaah like the US would ever pay the slighest amount of attention to any international treaty it didn't want to. The funny part is we are the ones who pushed to put weed in those treaties to begin with. I've heard nationally legalization polls at 50+%, and that is about the margin for picking the President, so yeah, Legalize It
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 19:51 |
So is the story about William Randolph Hearst single-handedly getting marijuana criminalized to stifle hemp paper true or what?
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 19:53 |
|
Loving Life Partner posted:So is the story about William Randolph Hearst single-handedly getting marijuana criminalized to stifle hemp paper true or what? I wouldn't say single-handedly (racism towards black folks in the South and Hispanic immigrants in the Southwest played a huge role too), but it is kinda hard to overstate the impact his papers' yellow journalism had on public opinion. Whether he did so consciously because of the challenge he faced in the hemp industry is another matter that I'm not entirely sure of. That's certainly the story I've heard multiple times though, and it makes sense to me.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 20:13 |
Hearst + Harry J. Anslinger. Those two guys basically toted about 95% of the responsibility for cannabis prohibition.
|
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 20:47 |
|
Going on my Time Machine assassination list along with Ayn Rand and Ed Bernays
|
# ? Oct 11, 2012 21:08 |
|
There's a good article on this over at The Amercian Conservative. The opponents are the worst kind of drug warriors you can imagine. What will we do these people after the [drug] war?quote:The legalization movement has benefited from a new approach, appealing to middle American sensibilities about the failure of the drug war and the hard lessons of prohibition. It is also gaining traction with fiscal conservatives who would rather tax marijuana sales than shuffle thousands of drug offenders through courts and prisons each year. According to this fiscal impact study, for example, the State of Colorado expects to save $12 million and raise $22.6 million in the first year of legalization through marijuana sales tax and licensing fees (embedded in the Colorado amendment is a clause mandating that the first $40 million raised be earmarked for a public school construction fund).
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 12:45 |
|
McDowell posted:Going on my Time Machine assassination list along with Ayn Rand and Ed Bernays Hearst also kept Upton Sinclair from becoming Governor of California.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 14:10 |
|
Solkanar512 posted:Hearst also kept Upton Sinclair from becoming Governor of California. He also pushed public opinion in favour of starting a war with Spain, which killed 15,000 people. The only people I know today who want to keep cannabis outlawed are either very conservative or uninformed about the reasons for legalization.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 14:52 |
|
whoredog posted:Our oligarchy that made it illegal can go suck a black cock. You don't have PM's so i have to call you out here. Black cock? is sucking a black cock worse than any other cock? What the gently caress man. I don't think you meant much by it but holy poo poo dude. Anyways, i live outside Seattle. Most of the medical growers i know aren't in favor of the WA law change. Apparently it will make it illegal for patients to sell to other patients or something. Everyone will have to grow themselves or buy from the state run stores. Someone tell me if i'm wrong here.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 16:18 |
|
Fragmented posted:
Other than that it seems fairly boilerplate for legal controlled substances.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 16:25 |
|
From the site: "According to the state Office of Financial Management, a new 25% marijuana excise tax, combined with retail sales and B&O tax, will generate more than half a billion dollars in new revenue each year." This will just drive the selling of cannabis underground again for most people. Edit: I mean there has to be a tax but 25%? That plus the other taxes and restrictions i can see why grower's are freaking out. Fragmented fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Oct 12, 2012 |
# ? Oct 12, 2012 16:30 |
|
Cigarette taxes are way way way higher than that and the convenience of legality is pretty important.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 16:41 |
|
Fragmented posted:From the site: If it's legal people will still be paying WAY below street prices. Even indoor grown stuff costs only about $300/lb, at the high end, for the electricity and nutrients. Outdoor stuff would be even cheaper, free at the low end... Even with a 100% tax it would be significantly cheaper than current street prices. Most of the cost that people pay is due to the grower/dealer taking an enormous risk in dealing in illegal substances. The actual product barely costs anything to produce.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 16:47 |
|
Still not sure why this would be Supreme Court issue. This is clearly an area in which both state and federal laws coexist. There is no requirement that I know of that states can't not have laws against things that are illegal at the federal level.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. quote:Federal authorities on Tuesday took legal action against 71 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County, part of an ongoing campaign to crack down on the establishments. mdemone posted: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. Fragmented posted:From the site: e: No idea if right, but: quote:About 82% of what consumers pay for a pack of cigarettes (average cost $5.95 – including statewide sales taxes but not local cigarette or sales taxes) ends up going to the government in taxes and other payments rather than for the cigarettes. And yeah, what wreckus said - weed would be ridiculously cheap if legal. gvibes fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Oct 12, 2012 |
# ? Oct 12, 2012 17:58 |
|
I find it really interesting that a lot of you are using the "alcohol users beat their wife and kids" example in your pro-weed conversations. I think that is pretty counter productive. Not even close to all alcohol users beat their families. That just encourages anti-weed folks to classify you guys: lazy students mooching off of society. Not a really accurate description, I'm sure. It's like pro-gun folks saying cars kill more people per year than guns. It doesn't help you in any way to make bad comparisons.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:02 |
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:I find it really interesting that a lot of you are using the "alcohol users beat their wife and kids" example in your pro-weed conversations. I think that is pretty counter productive. Not even close to all alcohol users beat their families. That just encourages anti-weed folks to classify you guys: lazy students mooching off of society. Not a really accurate description, I'm sure. Except that guns and cars really aren't the same sort of product whereas alcohol and marijuana are both mind altering substances. I'm not saying calling alcohol drinkers out as wife beaters is a good idea (it isn't) but it's not that bad of a comparison if you stick to the statistics, which bear out that alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana, not to mention 90% of the schedule 1 drug list.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:07 |
|
a lovely poster posted:Except that guns and cars really aren't the same sort of product whereas alcohol and marijuana are both mind altering substances. I'm not saying calling alcohol drinkers out as wife beaters is a good idea (it isn't) but it's not that bad of a comparison if you stick to the statistics, which bear out that alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana, not to mention 90% of the schedule 1 drug list. Alcohol is more or less the only drug that causes health damage at normal consumption levels. Heroin, crack and meth don't come close the the body load alcohol has - most of the physical damage we associate with these substances comes from chaotic abuse patterns and homelessness. Alcohol damages your liver over time even at non-abuse levels.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:27 |
I think mostly it's the silliness of the illegality. It's an adult product with a valid base of citizens that want to use and enjoy it legally. I've drank, and I've done every drug under the sun and there's just no reason for a product like alcohol to be legal when something as mild and inoffensive as bud isn't. The scariest times of my life have been legally alcohol fueled and semi-socially acceptable (blacking out is HILARIOUS, it has 2 major motion films, meanwhile, it's pretty loving terrifying).
|
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:29 |
|
gvibes posted:Still not sure why this would be Supreme Court issue. This is clearly an area in which both state and federal laws coexist. There is no requirement that I know of that states can't not have laws against things that are illegal at the federal level. Yeah, but if Colorado says it's legal and the feds say it isn't, then it's not really legal. The DEA doesn't HAVE to raid people, but that doesn't mean they won't.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:45 |
|
showbiz_liz posted:Yeah, but if Colorado says it's legal and the feds say it isn't, then it's not really legal. The DEA doesn't HAVE to raid people, but that doesn't mean they won't.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:54 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 19:02 |
|
Loving Life Partner posted:I think mostly it's the silliness of the illegality. It's an adult product with a valid base of citizens that want to use and enjoy it legally. I'm the same way, cannabis is so much milder than alcohol. No hangover, no blackouts, no overdose risk, and as long as you vape/eat there is very little health risks compared to the legal drugs. The withdrawal symptoms consist of a lack of appetite, difficulty falling asleep and boredom all incredibly mild. Alcohol withdrawal symptoms can kill you in extreme cases, Nicotine withdrawal symptoms are incredibly intense and can last for weeks/months. If you look at it objectively, there is no reason that Cannabis should be Schedule I... it should be treated like Alcohol or Tobacco. Limit consumption to 21+ to avoid any neurological issues caused by drug use during brain development... and let adults choose for themselves. Prison time for Cannabis is so beyond absurd I have a hard time talking about it without getting angry at the number of lives ruined due to these stupid laws.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2012 18:54 |