|
nucleicmaxid posted:This is completely loving false by all standards within the current understanding of modern Psychology, just FYI. If that were true it doesn't surprise me that modern psychology is notoriously bad at treating addiction. quote:According to just about every expert in the field addiction can, in fact, lead to people who are 'out of control' and are thus unable to modify their behavior in response to incentives. Whilst there are experts who believe addiction is compulsive and addicts are 'out of control' this is by no means universally accepted. This notion that addicts don't respond to incentive is bizarre (and could only be true if you believe that drug addiction is akin to demonic possession). Even the most heavily addicted smoker will not give them self permission to smoke in the office in plain view of their colleagues. This is why smoke-free workplace policies motivate people to quit. Even the most heavily dependent heroin addict still has to figure out how to get money to sustain their addiction. Not all addicts resort to crime. Many addicts work multiple jobs and cannot afford to be intoxicated all the time (your earning capacity is reduced if you are intoxicated or in withdrawal) which is a strong incentive to cut down or choose to be temporarily abstinent. quote:There are two reasons why it is tempting to label addictive drug use ‘compulsive’. First, there is a popular conception that addicted drug users will use no matter what countervailing reasons are present. In Oddie’s terms, such drug-oriented desires are not ‘reasons responsive’.29 It is popular to cite the case of the cocaine-addicted rat which continues to self- administer the drug, ignoring the bodily demands of hunger and fatigue, until it dies. As Davies points out, however, this is a terrible metric for compulsion – the rats tested have nothing to do other than self- administer drugs, and when the same tests are run under more naturalised environments, their behav- iour looks much more reasons-responsive, and much less compulsive.30 In fact, as Watson points out, drug-addicted humans are a lot more likely to decide not to use drugs than is popularly believed, especially when strong counterincentives are pre- sented. Mothers with dependent children, for exam- ple, are much more likely to give up their drug addictions.31 Neale reports that less serious reasons are also commonly given by users who decrease their heroin consumption, such as changes in the drug market, or conscious reflection of the drug’s pros and cons.32 The evidence that drug users do in fact respond to powerful incentives is a strong indicator that their behaviour is not compulsive. quote:neurobiological data do not establish that addiction is a form of compulsion and that control is nil. From a philosophical perspective, we should immediately be skeptical of any such conclusion on conceptual grounds. We commonly hold that what makes a piece of behavior an action, as opposed to a mere bodily movement, like an automatic reflex, is that it is voluntary. This means that there is the capacity for genuine choice between courses of action. Minimally, there must be at least two choices: to act in a particular way at a particular time, or not to.6 There is thus a dilemma facing the claim that addictive desire is genuinely irresistible. Drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior appears to be deliberate, to be flexible, and to involve complicated diachronic planning and execution. It bears all the hallmarks of action. But for it to be action as opposed to merely automatic reflex, alternatives must be available; minimally, it must be possible to refrain. Hence either addictive desires are resistible and the power to do otherwise remains or, despite appearances, the behavior they cause is not action (cf. Alvarez 2009). KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 16, 2012 |
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
rockinricky posted:I heard one anti-64 ad on the radio. They trotted out the old "If pot is legalized, it will be easier for kids to get it." line of bullshit. It started playing a few days before the election. Sounded like an act of desperation to me. If kids can get Alcohol they can get pot. Seriously how is that point not recognized as utterly moot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
rockinricky posted:They trotted out the old "If pot is legalized, it will be easier for kids to get it." line of bullshit. This is a mind-bogglingly stupid argument. According to the CDC it is already easier for kids to get it: CDC posted:Current marijuana use among high school students was more common than current cigarette use (23 percent compared to 18 percent). http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0607_yrb_telebriefing.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I don't think that would work either. I don't know of any scheduled drugs that are available on demand over the counter without a prescription. Marijuana needs to be descheduled completely. Also while we're at it, the Controlled Substances Act needs to be repealed, the DEA needs to be disbanded and all prisoners held on drug charges need to be released and pardoned. This is a nitpick, but there are a few places where you can get codeine cough syrup over the counter, which is I think Schedule V.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:This is a nitpick, but there are a few places where you can get codeine cough syrup over the counter, which is I think Schedule V. and where exactly would these places be, please be precise. Not that I don't believe you but I am pretty sure this isn't true at all. edit: Also wasn't the Attorney General of Colorado suppose to meet with the Justice department this week? I can't find a story on it or whether it happened. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
Hollis posted:and where exactly would these places be, please be precise. Not that I don't believe you but I am pretty sure this isn't true at all. He was suppose to meet with both - I haven't heard a thing. Here we go! Washington Governor Meets With DOJ On Marijuana Legalization There doesn't appear to be any details - I suspect that why there isn't a press release. I'm thinking we'll have to wait until December when it's officially legal. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Nov 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
Hollis posted:and where exactly would these places be, please be precise. Not that I don't believe you but I am pretty sure this isn't true at all. I don't know if there are any other states that allow it. I didn't feel like going through all 50 and DC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
Dilute prescription here means codeine combined with other drugs right? Or am I thinking of the wrong thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Dilute prescription here means codeine combined with other drugs right? Or am I thinking of the wrong thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robitussin_DAC Wikipedia posted:Robitussin DAC (more commonly known as its generic form, Cheratussin DAC) is an exempt narcotic cold medicine, which is available in the United States in a solution. A version without pseudoephedrine is called Robitussin AC. Cheratussin DAC and AC are manufactured by Qualitest. Under U.S. federal law, up to four ounces can be purchased within a 48 hour period without prescription, provided the purchaser is at least 18 years of age, sign a log book, and provide identification if not known to the pharmacist. However, many states nonetheless prohibit sale without prescription, or have restrictions on purchase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
You're misrepresenting what that first article says in a big way. That first article is discussing the ethical question of whether an addict is actually acting autonomously when approaching a researcher to take part in a study. This is important when attempting to take measurements and draw conclusions from research, as a subject who is only there because they want the chance of a free fix, or a subject who ended up there in the post-high low, while their brain state was affected by the drug of choice will not offer results that can be considered 'pure.' The entire article, even the [i]title[/] points to the fact that it is a question of whether people with an addiction are capable of consent. It's also mostly theoretical and philosophical rather than being truly scientific and offering research to justify its point. Ethics, specifically bio- and neuro- ethics are a relatively new thing, and there is a lot of fuzziness. That second article actually supports what I said, and also goes on to explain that there are cases where the individual in question can 'age out' of their addiction, or that some people are more prone to addiction based upon additional psychiatric disorders. Next time you feel like trying to argue, please do read the articles you're attempting to cherry pick. You also seem to substantially misunderstand addiction and its results, as you tried to use an example of a nicotine user who doesn't smoke in an office building, and a heroin user who is together enough to obtain money to be able to feed their addiction as a way of stating that users are 'in control.' While, first off, I didn't state that all users and addicts are 'out of control', merely that addiction can, in some individuals, cause loss of control. This is a well documented scientific fact, I'm aware of more than one study on rats who are given junk food, and refuse to eat 'healthy' food, or are given the option to be able to press a button to receive food or to release pleasurable sensations, and do so ceaselessly , without concern for hunger, though I'm too lazy to do your research for you, as you were too lazy to do your own research in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Self administration of drugs in animal models is an interesting phenomenon. But there is a study that was done that changed the paradigm that is often overlooked. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park Basically, what these researchers found was that rats living in tiny cages with no other stimulus than the drug will become addicted, but that if you change the context of the environment that they're living in addiction disappears. This is also more similar to the environment that humans face. An argument could also be made that impoverished environments are more likely to produce addiction in humans (or if people percieve their environment to be impoverished) So if you're going to use rats as models for human addictive behavior, it's at least fair to put them into a context that is closer to what humans face, it also shows the limitations of such a model given tha people have much different motivations than rats in taking drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:While, first off, I didn't state that all users and addicts are 'out of control', merely that addiction can, in some individuals, cause loss of control. This is a lot different than saying that "vice taxes" are useless because addicts don't respond to incentives, which is where this derail started. Edit: saw your edit on the last page. One of you is arguing against the claim that addiction never precludes incentives, the other is arguing against the claim that addiction always precludes incentives. You can both agree that it sometimes does, to some degree. What's the point? SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Nov 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Dilute prescription here means codeine combined with other drugs right? Or am I thinking of the wrong thing? quote:a compound, mixture, or preparation containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams that also includes one or more nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredients in sufficient proportion to confer upon the compound, mixture, or preparation valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by codeine alone
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:This is a well documented scientific fact, I'm aware of more than one study on rats who are given junk food, and refuse to eat 'healthy' food, or are given the option to be able to press a button to receive food or to release pleasurable sensations, and do so ceaselessly , without concern for hunger, though I'm too lazy to do your research for you, as you were too lazy to do your own research in the first place. Wait, what? It's almost like you didn't read more than one sentence of the excerpt I posted. Specifically the part on why the behaviour of rats in cages is such a terrible metric to measure things by. So, before you accuse me of cherry picking and of not doing my research, it might behoove you to take a bit of your own advice. As of right now you've posted sweet gently caress all in terms of supporting material. It's well documented scientific fact, is it? Well guess what, it's no my job to do your research to support your point of view. KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Wait, what? It's almost like you didn't read more than one sentence of the excerpt I posted. Specifically the part on why the behaviour of rats in cages is such a terrible metric to measure things by. We have posted the same amount of evidence. As I pointed out the material you attempted to post as evidence does not actually say what you're attempting to say it does. SurgicalOntologist posted:This is a lot different than saying that "vice taxes" are useless because addicts don't respond to incentives, which is where this derail started. You're right, I think I had more of a problem with the fact that KingEup decided to declare addicts completely sane rational actors who will adjust to an increase in price by simply using their substance of choice less. After rereading his statement it's a bit less hard line than I remembered, and the derail was kind of silly anyway, obviously different addicts will have differing levels of self control, and there is no easy Addict stamp we can use to define them all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Such claims could be easily checked by consumers (in more than one way), and this could open up false-advertising issues if it were in fact a placebo difference. I'd bet instead, if anything, that they'll simply brand different strains as this or that, regardless of THC/CBD content (although those numbers would give them a way to "rank" their brands, despite each strain being equally "good", but having different effects, from a consumer's perspective). From last page. If I recall correctly, the Washington law actually addresses this issue. The state Department of Agriculture is tasked with grading weed by THC content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
It may be unrelated to the topic but from what I understand that through breeding THC content of Marijuana has increased over the last 50 years. I am really curious as to what happens in the next few years as the laws come into effect Colorado starts taxing (or it's struck down). I think it will be struck down, I mean I don't think anyone can argue legally for state rights vs. federal law. Are there any precedents for this anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Hollis posted:It may be unrelated to the topic but from what I understand that through breeding THC content of Marijuana has increased over the last 50 years. I am really curious as to what happens in the next few years as the laws come into effect Colorado starts taxing (or it's struck down). It will be especially exciting to see the feckless Republican party standing silent on this issue of states' rights vs. the  IMPERIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The metric for such decisions is, in case you are interested, "Does this help people? TYRANNICAL POWER GRAB! Does this lock people up? Perfectly legitimate exercise of authority."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Hollis posted:It may be unrelated to the topic but from what I understand that through breeding THC content of Marijuana has increased over the last 50 years. I am really curious as to what happens in the next few years as the laws come into effect Colorado starts taxing (or it's struck down). The average THC content of marijuana has probably increased more since 1992 than it had from the beginning of prohibition to 1991. A lot of that is due to the internet. Growers now have better access to information about propagation techniques, equipment and strains and the internet was instrumental in enabling the explosion of small home grows (and later large outdoor grows) which identified and proliferated stronger strains. Before, it was "toss some bag seed in a pot and see what happens" for a lot of people. As for Colorado's situation, it's an amendment to the state constitution. I'm not sure if there's precedent for an amendment to a state constitution being struck down for opposing federal law, I've only seen such amendments struck down for being unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:As for Colorado's situation, it's an amendment to the state constitution. I'm not sure if there's precedent for an amendment to a state constitution being struck down for opposing federal law, I've only seen such amendments struck down for being unconstitutional. I can't think of any either, but I don't think it matters that it's an amendment to the state Constitution. The only argument for striking based on federal law would be if the federal government occupied the field in question. They certainly didn't explicitly do so, and when you consider the fact that states are allowed to prohibit alcohol as they so desire, I think there's a convincing argument that they did not occupy the field. The situation should be exactly like Gonzales v. Raich; the federal government is perfectly able to enforce their own policy within states that operate to the contrary. But, as always (and most recently Printz v. United States) the feds cannot compel states to carry out federal policy. So it's just a question of whether these states will give the federal government an excuse to step back from their policy. The laws can't be overruled, only ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:If kids can get Alcohol they can get pot. I think the last time I heard someone claiming that idea, they were also fully advocating police to just take people's blood without their consent or probable cause of any sort to test it, and detain them for the duration of the test, for THC intoxication. No half measures, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted: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. The thing is that we aren't talking about an enumerated power here, we're talking about a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The only thing I can think of for that is Gibbons v. Ogden, which invalidated a New York monopoly on transportation licenses on Commerce Clause grounds. However, the case explicitly involved a ferry between New York and New Jersey. It's certainly possible I'm missing some aspect of Commerce Clause precedent, but all of the cases I remember involve what the federal government is allowed to do. For example, they can regulate safety or labor relations, but it is they who must (and are allowed to) enforce those laws. As far as I know, states are perfectly free to set a minimum wage of $0.01/hr. That law couldn't be invalidated, but companies violating the FLSA would be subject to federal prosecution. Of course, an interesting extension of that would be if states punished companies who exceeded that rate. Does anyone know if something like that has been tried? Even so, the feds made no effort to invalidate California's medical marijuana regulation and I feel like if they could have, they would have. This isn't any different, legally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
vote_no posted:The thing is that we aren't talking about an enumerated power here, we're talking about a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The only thing I can think of for that is Gibbons v. Ogden, which invalidated a New York monopoly on transportation licenses on Commerce Clause grounds. However, the case explicitly involved a ferry between New York and New Jersey. You're missing Gonzales v. Raich, which built on Wickard v. Filburn and explicitly said that the federal government was allowed to regulate medical marijuana that stayed entirely inside California. And, yes, the federal government has made efforts to regulate California's medical marijuana regulation in the simplest way possible: they send in agents to raid dispensaries. The Obama administration has mostly kept to raiding the places that focus on "hey, get some 'medical' marijuana for your 'disorder,' it's legal!" rather than legitimate medical operations, but there's nothing to stop more extreme executive actions in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:You're missing Gonzales v. Raich, which built on Wickard v. Filburn and explicitly said that the federal government was allowed to regulate medical marijuana that stayed entirely inside California. Apparently you're not reading my posts. Not only did I bring up Gonzales v. Raich, I am not making the argument you seem to think I am and, in fact, brought up your point already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
vote_no posted:It's certainly possible I'm missing some aspect of Commerce Clause precedent, but all of the cases I remember involve what the federal government is allowed to do. For example, they can regulate safety or labor relations, but it is they who must (and are allowed to) enforce those laws. As far as I know, states are perfectly free to set a minimum wage of $0.01/hr. That law couldn't be invalidated, but companies violating the FLSA would be subject to federal prosecution. Of course, an interesting extension of that would be if states punished companies who exceeded that rate. Does anyone know if something like that has been tried? States are generally permitted to enact laws which are more stringent than federal laws, but if they enact less stringent laws they can run afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Good point on the federal government not challenging medical marijuana laws. If Janet Reno, John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales never sued states for enacting medical marijuana laws, there must have been really good reason. Either polling data showed it wasn't worth the political risk or there was a substantial possibility of losing a case and limiting federal oversight through the Commerce Clause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:States are generally permitted to enact laws which are more stringent than federal laws, but if they enact less stringent laws they can run afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Good point on the federal government not challenging medical marijuana laws. If Janet Reno, John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales never sued states for enacting medical marijuana laws, there must have been really good reason. Either polling data showed it wasn't worth the political risk or there was a substantial possibility of losing a case and limiting federal oversight through the Commerce Clause. With regard to the Supremacy Clause as it relates to federal law in particular, I believe that its application depends on whether Congress has occupied the field in question. They can explicitly state as much (which they haven't in this case), and if they do not it is up to the judges to determine whether through historical law and policy they have effectively done so. Like I said earlier, I don't think the government has a valid argument for occupying the field with regard to prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
That Irish Guy posted:I think the last time I heard someone claiming that idea, they were also fully advocating police to just take people's blood without their consent or probable cause of any sort to test it, and detain them for the duration of the test, for THC intoxication. Uhh what? Seriously? I'm just stating that if kids really want to get something they will get it eventually. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
The UN trying to interfere with states' rights? The conservatives are going to be FURIOUS. http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_22034126/un-official-calls-marijuana-ballot-rollback quote:VIENNA—The head of the U.N. drug watchdog agency is urging U.S. federal officials to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
What message is that? That democracy trumps paternalism? That the UN laws were written at the height of US influence and are just another level of authority enforcing them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Now I know of the economic and social factors that triggered the Marijuana ban in America, but what were the reasons for the UN to adopt that ruling unilaterally?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Now I know of the economic and social factors that triggered the Marijuana ban in America, but what were the reasons for the UN to adopt that ruling unilaterally?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
I'm excited by the prospect that someday soon this poo poo will finally be over. I'm also very nervous because I know there are forces out there that will do everything they can to kill this, regardless of what the people want. I will say though, I am very surprised by the media. I was stuck at the shop trying to get my car fixed (again, after the last shop hosed it up even worse, goddammit  ) and of course they had it on Fox news. They did a small segment on it and for Fox news it was surprisingly "well mannered", even keeping the puns to a minimum. I just want to see this happen, I want to live somewhere where people are not being thrown on prison and all their poo poo taken just because of a loving plant, and I'm nervous because there is the little part of me that thinks it is not going to happen. Hold me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Was STrooperTK420 taken?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Was STrooperTK420 taken? Nope, but 420 is one of the reasons I'm not at my post...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Now I know of the economic and social factors that triggered the Marijuana ban in America, but what were the reasons for the UN to adopt that ruling unilaterally? Egypt had a lot to do with it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12534418 quote:Although cannabis (Indian hemp) was not on the agenda of the Second Opium Conference, a claim by the Egyptian delegation that it was as dangerous as opium, and should therefore be subject to the same international controls, was supported by several other countries. No formal evidence was produced and conference delegates had not been briefed about cannabis. The only objections came from Britain and other colonial powers. They did not dispute the claim that cannabis was comparable to opium, but they did want to avoid a commitment to eliminating its use in their Asian and African territories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Cannabis (along with wine and brothels) was perfectly legal and taxed for much of Egypt's history which is the ironic part.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
snorch posted:Egypt had a lot to do with it: See also: quote:The League of Nations and the Debate over Cannabis Prohibition http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00740.x/full The problem with cannabis, according to the Tunisian representative (who happened to be a member of the French colonial government) was it enabled Arabs: quote:to lead in imagination the life which they would like to live, but which their indolence and love of ease in most cases prevents them from attaining by work, forethought and persevering effort The problem wasn't just cannabis though. According to the Algerian representative (who happened to be a racist French psychiatrist) quote:[the Arab] has a peculiar propensity towards drug addiction. It has been said that he is a born drug addict... his essentially passive temperament leaves him without defense against temptation. He lives from day to day, at the mercy of his instincts and desires. He has no idea of making provision for the future, and abandons himself to the satisfaction of his immediate needs. … Owing to his lack of mental and moral powers of resistance, the native soon falls into the state of decline and moral decay which follows too wholesale or long an indulgence in drugs. Similarly, his entirely instinctive way of life, the fact that his behavior is dictated solely by immediate reaction, and his fundamentally impulsive nature, soon give to his crises of intoxication a violent and tragic character’ There you have it folks. Drug prohibition was based on good old fashioned racism. KingEup fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Nov 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
KingEup posted:See also: The more public we can make information like this the better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
I was discussing this today with some family members and one of my family members who is a lawyer was just talking in general States vs. Federal rights. If it does get overthrown it's possible to decriminalize to the point of no effect. Meaning the state can say Marijuana possession is a ticket of fifty cents that is expunged from your record. Etc.. Basically decriminalizing it into nonexistence for personal possession. The general view is that this will get thrown out due to federal laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 08:27
|
|