|
Hollis posted: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.. No it won't! Probably I'm being annoying, so I won't rehash my earlier arguments, but please tell me on what grounds you think the state laws will be invalidated, and please cite precedent.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
vote_no posted:No it won't! Probably I'm being annoying, so I won't rehash my earlier arguments, but please tell me on what grounds you think the state laws will be invalidated, and please cite precedent. I'm not assigning any opinion to posters here, but I have run into this while discussing the marijuana legalization with pretty much everyone I can lately and a lot of the time it boils down to either unfounded pessimism or simply that Federal > State in terms of laws. Since federal laws are a higher level they can just throw out any state law they want kind of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
The Congressional Research Service put out a detailed report a few weeks ago about the implications of states legalizing cannabis: (pdf). e: here's a relevant section. Congressional Research Service posted:To What Extent Are State Medical Marijuana Laws Preempted by Federal Law? They're specifically reefering (heh) to medical cannabis there, but the same should be true in general. Broken Machine fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Hollis posted: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.. Well, good to know that it's not possible for the Feds to force the State to give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:Well, good to know that it's not possible for the Feds to force the State to give a gently caress. In the mid-80s, the federal government forced states to raise their drinking age to 21 by threatening the withholding of transportation funds. States were free to retain other drinking ages, but none, ultimately, chose to forgo billions of dollars. Same thing with the 55 mph speed limit in the 70s, since repealed. Tying transportation funding to a prohibition of adult cannabis possession might be a bit of a stretch. Perhaps a better case could be made for law enforcement grants and the like. As others have noted, though, it might not be something the federal government would wish to have tested in court. Assuming something like this doesn't happen, I'm interested how far the federal government will go in combating recreational cannabis. Let's say they go after large producers or retailers, a year or so from now. Will they be able to get a jury of 12 to convict someone of doing something legal under state law in CO or WA? If they do face jury nullification issues, will a federal judge change the venue of drug trials to states where cannabis remains illegal? Will the DOJ seek indictments against state governors and treasurers for laundering drug proceeds by collecting sales taxes? Here's hoping these questions come up and are asked in the confirmation hearing for Eric Holder's replacement. From what I've read, Holder isn't staying on as Attorney General.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:Well, good to know that it's not possible for the Feds to force the State to give a gently caress. That's not necessarily true. The federal government can't directly force the state to enact some criminal statute, but states are awfully dependent on federal funding. This is how Congress set the national drinking age at 21. They couldn't do it directly, but when they imposed a heavy penalty on federal highway funds to states that didn't have a 21-year drinking age, all of a sudden we had a uniform national drinking age. (e: f, b on this) The regulate-and-tax provisions of Washington's law are possible targets, as well. It's possible that the law could end up like the old marijuana stamp schemes: why, sure, it's perfectly legal to sell with the proper license. Oh, you'd like a license? I'm sorry, but we've never given one out and don't plan to start (or, in Washington's case, we'd love to give you one but we've got this injunction from a federal judge).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:That's not necessarily true. The federal government can't directly force the state to enact some criminal statute, but states are awfully dependent on federal funding. This is how Congress set the national drinking age at 21. They couldn't do it directly, but when they imposed a heavy penalty on federal highway funds to states that didn't have a 21-year drinking age, all of a sudden we had a uniform national drinking age. (e: f, b on this) Yep. That's why I as a Washingtonian wish we had Colorado's law, and mourn that Oregon's went down in flames.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
I would be surprised to see the feds crack down on states legalizing cannabis. It might be different had Romney won, but Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election, so he's a bit freer. A Mexican think tank released a study a short while ago (link), estimating that if cannabis had been legalized in all three states where it was on the ballot, it would cut the cartels' earnings by up to 30%. If anything, the more responsible politicians are going to look at the effect this has and once they see it's successful and having a profound impact on drug cartels, they're going to move to support this as much as they can. If laws are written in a way that they end up in court, it'll be to reconcile the state law with federal policy, and not to overturn them or bully the states into line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:I would be surprised to see the feds crack down on states legalizing cannabis. It might be different had Romney won, but Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election, so he's a bit freer. A Mexican think tank released a study a short while ago (link), estimating that if cannabis had been legalized in all three states where it was on the ballot, it would cut the cartels' earnings by up to 30%. If anything, the more responsible politicians are going to look at the effect this has and once they see it's successful and having a profound impact on drug cartels, they're going to move to support this as much as they can. If laws are written in a way that they end up in court, it'll be to reconcile the state law with federal policy, and not to overturn them or bully the states into line. You make the assumption that politicans act to better their constituencies and not fulfill their part of the bargain to their campaign contributors, who are very frequently heavily involved in the private prison business, which thrives because of drug convictions. Sooooooo~
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:You make the assumption that politicans act to better their constituencies and not fulfill their part of the bargain to their campaign contributors, who are very frequently heavily involved in the private prison business, which thrives because of drug convictions. Sooooooo~ No, I actually agree that politicians are in the tank for various special interests. In this case, I think the wants of the prison lobby will be overridden by all of the other special interests and benefits, like the broad support behind legalization and advantages of tax revenue. Also there's nothing stopping them from diverting resources currently used for cannabis prohibition to busting people for other drugs instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
I didn't see this posted so I figured this might be the best place to bring it up: 7-year-old girl gets medical marijuana to combat chemo. The girl's got leukemia and marijuana pills help her with the chemo so I totally sympathize. And I'm sure there's mostly support for this in this thread. But I have to wonder how this will affect people's perception across the country. I mean one of the issues raised was the father, who lives in a different state, and his concern about his daughter using pot. This wouldn't even be public if it wasn't legal but it might backfire in the effort to gain support for the cause of legalization, because "oh my god think of the children". What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:I didn't see this posted so I figured this might be the best place to bring it up: People shouldn't ever get to take medicine that they might enjoy, even if they're children. Suffering is a learning tool to stop being so sick in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:This wouldn't even be public if it wasn't legal but it might backfire in the effort to gain support for the cause of legalization, because "oh my god think of the children". What do you guys think? If I were a anti-marijuana strategist, I'd wait for the issue to cool off and only touch it in the abstract. ("Democrats are so evil, they give marijuana to children!") My fear with arguing the specific example is that it could backfire spectacularly. I'm imagining a chemo-afflicted little girl sitting opposite to some anti-marijuana pundit and asking, tears in her eyes, "Why do you want me to hurt again?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:People shouldn't ever get to take medicine that they might enjoy, even if they're children. Suffering is a learning tool to stop being so sick in the future. The only time it's ok to use prescription meds for recreation is when you're white. I recall Rush Limbaugh railing against seniors getting their meds paid for by the gub'mint literally right before he went down for scoring oxys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Maine will vote for full legalization within 2-3 years I predict. A bill is already getting prepared for the upcoming year. It's inevitable, now. Just as predicted/feared, Medical Marijuana was the "Trojan Horse" which got this issue into the mainstream. There are three large forces now aligned towards full legalization: 1. States voting for it. This will force the Fed's hand one way or another 2. The medical community pressuring the Feds to move Marijuana to a different drug class so that proper research can be done. 3. Budgets. Sin taxes are the best taxes and what state would walk away from free money?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:I didn't see this posted so I figured this might be the best place to bring it up: Marijuana inhibits development of the frontal lobe in users younger than 18, IIRC. Since chemotherapy is often done and over with in less than a year though, I really can't object to this on grounds of quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
The kid's already being poisoned (because that's what chemotherapy is), any damage done by cannabis pills is likely to be dwarfed by whatever that's doing to her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:This wouldn't even be public if it wasn't legal but it might backfire in the effort to gain support for the cause of legalization, because "oh my god think of the children". What do you guys think? Methamphetamine is FDA approved. For 6 year olds. http://www.lundbeck.com/us/products/cns-products/desoxyn
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:If I were a anti-marijuana strategist, I'd wait for the issue to cool off and only touch it in the abstract. ("Democrats are so evil, they give marijuana to children!") Forget interviewing the patient, interviewing the mother would be a gold mine for anti marijuana policy makers. The mother believes pot cured her skin cancer, there's no telling what asinine poo poo she'd say if given a public platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
I know plenty of people who have started that young. Whatever damage it does is very obviously not even close to enough to deny its prescription to kids, given what other terrible things we prescribe them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
I'm no expert but I've heard of (very) young patients with likely terminal diseases (cancer, sickle-cell anemia, aids) who have been able to cope (at the bare minimum) on a day to day basis with their situation simply because they has access to pot. I really can't see the gov't going after those users. As a WA state voter and daily pot smoker I'm really looking forward to the national government trying to launch a new smear campaign against pot smokers (and ballot voters?) in general. I'm hoping to launch a small business of my own someday (catering), but if we could grow weed as well I'd have to seriously think about changing gears 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
The most recent episode of NBC's "Parenthood" is an example of how not to promote it as a helpful drug. It showed an artificially overwhelmed mother(who schedules a weekend long play date post chemo?) almost miraculously cured by smoking a little pot. Symptoms of chemotherapy can be lessened, but to give in to the idea that cannabis is some kind of miracle drug is irresponsible messaging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
HK5000 posted:I'm no expert but I've heard of (very) young patients with likely terminal diseases (cancer, sickle-cell anemia, aids) who have been able to cope (at the bare minimum) on a day to day basis with their situation simply because they has access to pot. The DEA is so morally and ethically bankrupt that I really, really wouldn't put it past them since they are starting to play an endgame at this point - and it is an endgame threatening a lot of people's bullshit jobs in the law enforcement and corrections industries. I remember when NM's medical pot law came into effect, within a week some shithole little sheriff's dept. somewhere in the rural part of the state busted a paraplegic for legally growing his exact allotted amount and tried to bring him up on trafficking charges. Didn't stick, but I'm sure that was a fantastic experience. MrQwerty fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:I didn't see this posted so I figured this might be the best place to bring it up: This is a weird case as the mother's obviously kind of mental. Her boyfriend is the girl's "grower" and she smoked while pregnant and believe marijuana cures cancer. It's just a weird case, she's also not giving Manitol, she's giving it to her in a oil form. It's just over all strange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:I didn't see this posted so I figured this might be the best place to bring it up: I remember years ago either the History channel or the Discovery Channel had a show about the history of and uses for cannabis and hemp. One of the segments was an interview with a doctor talking about his preteen son dying of cancer and chemo in the 70s and how cannabis gave his son a massive increase to the quality of his life. Always came off as a very sympathetic story to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:I didn't see this posted so I figured this might be the best place to bring it up: 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted: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. They did a drat fine job scaring everyone with DUI misinformation. I'm still trying to convince people that there's a difference between active and inactive THC. Also people seem convinced cops are gonna drug test everyone they pull over. What the hell, people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:They did a drat fine job scaring everyone with DUI misinformation. I'm still trying to convince people that there's a difference between active and inactive THC. Also people seem convinced cops are gonna drug test everyone they pull over. What the hell, people? Yeah, the misinformation campaign was pretty stupid. I'm just glad it passed so they will shut the gently caress up about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted: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. That's the same poo poo the CA mmj industry pulled to stop the legalization initiative there. It made me sick how quickly the folks who were supposed to be getting AIDS patients off the drug war battlfield became the bad guys defending their profit margins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted: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. If naturopaths with their diplomas in crayon are allowed to prescribe MMJ then that pretty much undermines any argument that the stuff should be given under medical supervision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
In my experience with a medically medically complicated disabled friend of mine, there are some people for whom the only advice doctors will give is "your body is hosed up, all we can do is ease the pain". That's what most pain medication is, just making you feel better without fixing the underlying issues. From that perspective, marijuana is a safer more genuine treatment then half of the pills that are pushed for dealing with various kinds of pain. In the little girl with chemo example: I doubt anyone seriously thinks they're fighting her Leukemia with pot, but I'll bet its the safest most effective way to deal with the fact that that little girl feels like poo poo every day because of her illness. edit: Woops, the conversation shifted a few pages ago, oh well. D1Sergo fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
You guys are wrong about the tax stamps... The courts have ruled they have to sell them if they are going to prosecute people for not having them. That seems to make the tax provisions perfectly fine. Precedent is also clear: the Feds can't draft local police into enforcing federal law. So the Feds can start trying to arrest people in Washington if they like, good luck with that plan... That's why Congress uses the "power of the purse strings" to entice compliance in the first place. The drug scheduling rules clearly state that THC shouldn't be Schedule I since one of the requirements is that the substance have no legitimate medical use. Has anyone tried suing the DEA to force them to reschedule it? The international treaties also have similar provisions so if any court bothered to make us follow our own laws, it seems like THC should already move down a couple of notches. It also makes me wonder why Obama doesn't have the DEA just reschedule it... The administrator can move things up and down, except if HHS finds no scheduling need it prohibits the DEA from doing so. There are several avenues there that don't require Congress or any political manuverings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
I am pleased to report that civilization in Seattle did not collapse today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:I am pleased to report that civilization in Seattle did not collapse today. Today was "A Cautionary Tale" in local newscasts everywhere else reporting on Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
quote:I would be surprised to see the feds crack down on states legalizing cannabis. It might be different had Romney won, but Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election, so he's a bit freer. A Mexican think tank released a study a short while ago (link), estimating that if cannabis had been legalized in all three states where it was on the ballot, it would cut the cartels' earnings by up to 30%. If anything, the more responsible politicians are going to look at the effect this has and once they see it's successful and having a profound impact on drug cartels, they're going to move to support this as much as they can. If laws are written in a way that they end up in court, it'll be to reconcile the state law with federal policy, and not to overturn them or bully the states into line. ...You're kidding, right? The ATF & DEA would do anything and everything up to incinerating the state legislative buildings, machine gunning everyone trying to evacuate and then lobotomizing anyone who questioned their actions in order too keep cannabis illegal. It's a huge cash cow for them, and it's easily the best tool right now for silencing political dissidents in the U.S. So long as the U.S. federal government stands, cannabis will be illegal in North America. They can't admit that they lost a war, and this is what they literally consider themselves to be waging against drug users / dealers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
The Ender posted:The ATF & DEA would do anything and everything up to incinerating the state legislative buildings, machine gunning everyone trying to evacuate and then lobotomizing anyone who questioned their actions in order too keep cannabis illegal. It's a huge cash cow for them, and it's easily the best tool right now for silencing political dissidents in the U.S. Is this a troll where you're pretending to be a crazy person or what. I can't tell, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Today was "A Cautionary Tale" in local newscasts everywhere else reporting on Seattle. What? What are they cautioning against, sleeping?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:What? What are they cautioning against, sleeping? Smoking too much and ODing, of course
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
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. From interviews on both CNN and The Young Turks (Current TV) yesterday, I can't get a feel for who she represents. Here's the TYT interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfYgIt7aeCw&t=403s Cenk, and the CNN interviewer earlier in the day, both pointed out nothing in CO's law gives employees special rights, and on the job users could be fired just like people showing up to work drunk. My guess is she's working for Coors, or some other corporation like Corrections Corporation of America, but who knows? Another organization was mentioned, "Colorado Concern" or something like that. Anyone know who she is carrying water for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 05:26
|
|