|
HBNRW posted:If you don't consider Uruguay, Netherlands, or Portugal as places I guess. If you'd like to point out where he said "the only two places" feel free.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
Well, marijuana is officially legal in Colorado:quote:With the stroke of pen, Gov. John Hickenlooper made it official Monday: Pot is now legal in the state of Colorado, according to the state constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If you'd like to point out where he said "the only two places" feel free. I didn't notice the of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
It's not legal in Portugal, just decriminalized. You can still have a civil fine levied or be forced into treatment, if I recall correctly. The Netherlands also has a grey, quasi legal status for the stuff, are smokers in cafes completely in the clear legally or is it more of a wink and a nod? I know the cafes themselves mainly get by on non-enforcement since their purchases tend to be illicit. But then if we're being technical, you cannot legally smoke in WA or CO - it's just that local and state authorities have no legal mechanism to prosecute you. A DEA agent can still arrest you for possession if he feels like it and a federal prosecutor can charge you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
It's also technically not legal in the Netherlands either. Not sure about Uruguay though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Well, marijuana is officially legal in Colorado: Wow. He could have just waited until Jan. 6 and it would've went into effect on its own. I know he publicly was against it, but it's kind of interesting that he went ahead and signed off on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I'm for legalization, not just of pot but of everything. I think the war on drugs is a massive failure that has ruined far too many lives, given for profit prisons far too much money, cost us all far to much money, is unwinnable, causes massive problems for other nations, has eroded our civil liberties, and all in all has been one of the most idiotic and reprehensible ideas this nation ever had. I'd rate it a stupider idea than the war on terror, probably the only thing worse than it has been slavery. Most of the time I disagree with you, but this is a real concern. Precedent is a powerful thing, and if Obama ignores that states are going against Federal law in this case, what prevents other states from ignoring other laws that they dislike? This thread can talk about how they are different all day long, but the only way I see this working out is either the feds sue the states and legal MJ is stopped or they strike a deal to drop MJ down to a schedule 5 or something. You don't want to live in a world where states can ignore federal laws as they see fit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Apparently weed is semi-legal in Iran?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Most of the time I disagree with you, but this is a real concern. Precedent is a powerful thing, and if Obama ignores that states are going against Federal law in this case, what prevents other states from ignoring other laws that they dislike? Agreed. From a progressive politics perspective, these laws were pretty much designed to do two things: 1. Stop people from getting arrested for possession. 2. Dare the Feds to do something about it, because they have to do something about it. This isn't about State's Rights, it's about getting them to do something. Because they can either: A. Drop cannabis to one of the lower schedules that make the state laws not conflict with federal laws B. Sue the states and then we get to have a whole bunch of fun court cases where the DEA/DOJ gets to try and convince some judges of how horribly dangerous a substance that cannabis is (while the opposition gets to show tons of actual scientific proof to the contrary). Now, B may not happen in that manner immediately--the initial cases may simply be about states challenging federal supremacy. But somewhere down the line the fight would transform into what I said above. Thing is, the DEA knows they can't win the case once science gets involved. Watching the head of the DEA weasel her way through congressional hearings is enough to tell you that. And while all of this happens public perception of cannabis laws keeps going the way it has been going, and we start getting more and more elected officials at the federal level challenging the status quo. This may not be over, but it is, barring something totally unforeseen, the beginning of the end for cannabis prohibition in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
I can't find any recent info on this court case, but the wheels are already well in motion: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/powerful-court-quietly-takes-marijuana-case-could-shatter-federal-prohibition-laws
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
B isn't going to happen in that fashion. Let's also not forget that the Roberts court when they ruled on health care already set the door to go after commerce clause. I'd wager what will happen is something crops up between a state where it's legal and one where it's not. That drags the feds in. Then any over zealous right winger who really wants to take a crack at creating a states rights conservatopia now has a clear way to get this poo poo before the Roberts court, that or some doofy rear end progressive thinks he's going to save the world and lobs the challenge. Now Alito and Roberts now have a great way to reverse the entire laundry list of liberal accomplishments and legal precedent in one fell swoop for several generations. Either it ends up that the federal government is supreme over the states in which case all legalization is screwed, or the states can reject federal laws and every right wingers wet dream is instantly realized. This is the most conservative supreme court in a long time, with several members of the federalist society who have come out and said poo poo like the commerce clause was all decided wrong. This could be the biggest liberal strategic blunder of modern times. You have to think about legal collateral damage when serving up any sort of states vs feds argument and the make up of the courts. Let's not even forget that most federal judges are still Bush cronies, the Roberts court went after CU to get that passed, and that Roberts himself used the health care fiasco to scale back the commerce clause. I'm aware that's kinda the nightmare scenario, but I'm not convinced using libertarian federalism arguments with this supreme court is anything short of brain dead. However noble the goal of ending the drug war may be. We're the supreme court not full of right wing hacks I wouldn't worry so much. But I don't think anyone here would put it past this court to use something to serve up a solid conservative win on an issue this massive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Makarov_ posted:If the WA law is followed through to fruition, I eagerly await the state treasurer being indicted for money laundering. I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for a change of venue and looked for jurors unfamiliar with the state laws. There has been at least one case I know of in CA where all 12 jurors immediately recanted after they learned they had convicted a doctor for prescribing medical marijuana instead of a regular drug dealer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for a change of venue and looked for jurors unfamiliar with the state laws. There has been at least one case I know of in CA where all 12 jurors immediately recanted after they learned they had convicted a doctor for prescribing medical marijuana instead of a regular drug dealer. Well in any case, the federal government will be required doing things that they have to justify in some sense to continue prohibition. With the previous status quo the problem was the government could be irrational and not have to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Okay, guess I was a bit wrong in my initial interpretation of that map. My bad It's also deceptive because Utah, which has probably the most conservative alcohol regulations in the nation, (beer limited to 3% ABV, only ABC stores can sell wine and liquor, meaning no bars or convenience stores sell drinkable alcohol), is listed as pure blue. I mean it's nice to know the regulations by county, but these things are hard to quantify on a single measure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
SilentD posted:B isn't going to happen in that fashion. Let's also not forget that the Roberts court when they ruled on health care already set the door to go after commerce clause. The problem is, how else do we fix it? While "wait for the political climate to change" might even work, it ignores the human rights disaster that is happening because of prohibition. I like the route of forcing the issue. While you're right that it could be twisted into a State's Rights fiasco it certainly doesn't need to, and I don't think that even the Obama administration, as head-in-the-sand as they are over the drug war, is going to want to wake that monster. Perhaps I'm optimistic but I'd wager that they will cave on it long before this hits the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's also deceptive because Utah, which has probably the most conservative alcohol regulations in the nation, (beer limited to 3% ABV, only ABC stores can sell wine and liquor, meaning no bars or convenience stores sell drinkable alcohol), is listed as pure blue. I mean it's nice to know the regulations by county, but these things are hard to quantify on a single measure. The map is supposed to only tell you "bans all alcohol across all of the territorial subdivision", "bans all alcohol in at least one part of subdivision", "does not ban all alcohol in any part". Not really deceptive, though apparently some counties were mistakenly marked as fully dry when they were only partially so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Apparently weed is semi-legal in Iran? Iran is terrible about things that are banned under sharia, but are surprisingly cool with things that aren't banned. See also how Iran is one of the most progressive countries in the world regarding gender reassignment surgery and transgender issues, while simultaneously being horrifically homophobic. This can lead to some hilarious issues, like the twenty-year Iranian legal dispute over whether or not caviar was permitted under Islamic law, a dispute you can read about in this fantastic article: http://www.caviarcaviar.com/How-Caviar-Became-Halal
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:That's a fair point, but I don't think anyone besides the Libertards are trying to approach it from the State's Rights perspective. Here is the devil in this mess, it's not always about how you approach it, though that has a lot to do with it, it's also about how the court delivers it's ruling. Case in point Obamacare. Everybody expected that thing would fly through because of the commerce clause, and everybody on the left insisted it wasn't a tax. By the time that thing came out of the courts it was upheld under the federal governments ability to tax and yet Roberts used it to take a chunk out of commerce clause arguments. There really isn't anything stopping some right wing judge from turning this into a federalism fiasco in his rulling on the subject. Roberts and Alito have certainly proven willing to fast track things to the courts and create off the wall rulings and arguments soley to push their conservative ideology. If the make up of the USSC were different and a huge portion of our judges not members of the federalist society and cronies of the various Bushes I'd be the first one saying this was all a bunch of chicken little bullshit over nothing. Also Democratic governors have come out and given this the old "the federal government shouldn't tell the citizens of the great state of XXX what they can", which is straight up the old conservative talking points nearly verbatim, if for a noble cause instead of a shittastic one. In the end I have a lot of faith in conservative judges to use this for their own ends and over eager liberals to screw it up than I do for things working out in a sane manner. There's also nothing to stop some crazy rear end lawyer from CATO from racing forward with the states rights gambit as soon as they get the chance (they've been banging that drum for decades but never had a chance to try and get it to court till now). Sadly I don't really have a solution (other than Obama to just grab the bull by the horns on this one and push for legalization and tell the DOJ to piss off). I'd say maybe a million pot head march but stoners would never get off the couch and put away the cheetos (too easy I know). Right now I just get the feeling I'm watching people pitch slow hanging balls to Alito.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
My problem with what SilentD is saying is that it comes off like the Paulite plan to hijack the Republican convention through rules lawyering; ie, that it is a route that is technically open under some readings of the rules, but won't actually come off because reality. I'll grant I don't have much of an argument as to the specifics, other than that the Obama administration is not going to instigate a constitutional crisis over weed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Did you all see my link? This issue is in Federal Court right now. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/17/1025131/powerful-federal-appeals-court-considers-marijuanas-medical-benefits/ This solves the marijuana issue at the Federal level, does it not? Reclassify Marijuana as Schedule 3 or 5 or whatever and instantly, marijuana legalization (or not) becomes a state issue. Right? The Feds are no longer concerned about any aspect of the marijuana supply chain, and each state is free to regulate the substance as they see fit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Did you all see my link? This issue is in Federal Court right now. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/17/1025131/powerful-federal-appeals-court-considers-marijuanas-medical-benefits/ quote:Even if the court did side with the plaintiffs, it would likely return the case to the DEA to reconsider its decision or require a hearing on the issue, and the agency has already declined to reclassify marijuana several times before in 1972 and again in 1988, even after an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the drug should be reclassified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:You missed the important last paragraph of that article, though:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Did you all see my link? This issue is in Federal Court right now. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/17/1025131/powerful-federal-appeals-court-considers-marijuanas-medical-benefits/ Fixes the conflict with it from the aspect of medical pot doesn't do much about it for recreational use. Just as states can legally have medical morphine but you'll still get arrested for having it sans perscription and I can't grow opium poppies if I wanted to (well, legally). The ultimate cop out is to just remove it from the list and decriminalize it, ie the federal government has no stance on it at all. Then the states can do whatever they want and there is no conflict. I think that's the solution and it would just turn into booze then, local communities can decide for themselves. quote:My problem with what SilentD is saying is that it comes off like the Paulite plan to hijack the Republican convention through rules lawyering; ie, that it is a route that is technically open under some readings of the rules, but won't actually come off because reality. And I'd agree with you 100% were it not for the current make up of the supreme court and the fact that Republicans have been packing the federal bench with members of the federalist society. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia are all members of the federalist society. The last time this came up in 2005 it got slapped down because of the commerce clause (that was over medical pot, we have fully legal pot now). Though that was under the Rhenquist court, we now have the Roberts court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:I'll grant I don't have much of an argument as to the specifics, other than that the Obama administration is not going to instigate a constitutional crisis over weed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The map is supposed to only tell you "bans all alcohol across all of the territorial subdivision", "bans all alcohol in at least one part of subdivision", "does not ban all alcohol in any part". Not really deceptive, though apparently some counties were mistakenly marked as fully dry when they were only partially so. I understand what it's saying but it lead some people to assume some relatively 'wet' counties were dry, and some relatively 'dry' counties were wet. I'm not sure if there's a single way to express it well on a county-level map, but that one doesn't do the best job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Burn Zone posted:Wow. He could have just waited until Jan. 6 and it would've went into effect on its own. I know he publicly was against it, but it's kind of interesting that he went ahead and signed off on it. It is my understanding that he signed it early with no announcement so that there would be no countdown and no party in the streets like in Seattle. SilentD posted:Here is the devil in this mess, it's not always about how you approach it, though that has a lot to do with it, it's also about how the court delivers it's ruling. Also, didn't part of the Obamacare ruling essentially say that the Federal government can no longer use the threat of withholding funds to the States as a bludgeon to force them into compliance with Federal law? Wouldn't that negate the ability of the Fed to do something like in the 80's with state drinking ages and withholding transportation funding?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
On the Supreme Court idea, how on earth does anyone see a ruling being anything other than 8-1? I can't even see how it'd get cert in the first place, Raich controls this issue completely and Roberts went even further with PPACA. Maybe Alito would be in the minority with Thomas but I can't see Roberts, Kennedy, or Scalia distinguishing this from Raich. Edit: ^^ No, that's not what PPACA said. The bludgeon still exists, it just can't be retroactively changed by the feds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:On the Supreme Court idea, how on earth does anyone see a ruling being anything other than 8-1? I can't even see how it'd get cert in the first place, Raich controls this issue completely and Roberts went even further with PPACA. Maybe Alito would be in the minority with Thomas but I can't see Roberts, Kennedy, or Scalia distinguishing this from Raich. I think this is the sort of thing that will depend on exactly what the supreme court is asked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Edit: ^^ No, that's not what PPACA said. The bludgeon still exists, it just can't be retroactively changed by the feds. So what exactly does that mean? That only new funding provided to the states can have new conditions attached (meaning this ruling would have prevented the Reagan highway funds-drinking age tactic)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:So what exactly does that mean? That only new funding provided to the states can have new conditions attached (meaning this ruling would have prevented the Reagan highway funds-drinking age tactic)? I think the highway funds were allocated on a year by year basis which is an important difference in this case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
A former president has come out against the drug war, and no, it wasn't a former Latin American president again, it was Bill Clinton  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1309711/bill-clinton-joins-world-leaders-in-declaring-drug-war-failure/ The drug war has a whole isn't going to end anytime soon, but maybe marijuana's time in prohibition is finally in fact reaching the sunset.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Anyone with a deeper knowledge think rescheduling weed seems like its the most likely outcome? Bill Clinton coming out is actually shocking, when I saw the link I thought for sure it was going to be Carter. Clinton condemning the drug war is like Reagan coming out in support of unions or something. It looks like so many states challenging this, it becoming unpopular, actual presidents who presided over some of the worst excesses of the war on drugs when it was popular are coming out against it, the writing on the wall has to be visible to a lot of people with power. It seems like rescheduling would be the easiest way out for a lot of people to not lose face trying to fight popular will and to avoid a clusterfuck of legal issues making a court challenge would cause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Zewle posted:Anyone with a deeper knowledge think rescheduling weed seems like its the most likely outcome? The thing is, I'm not seeing what they could schedule it to and still have it be (legally) available for recreational use. I guess in theory they could drop it from the scheduling all together but I don't think that would really be tenable, especially since there *are* some issues related with it (or at least people don't want underaged youth trying it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Is the DEA the only group that could reschedule it/drop it from scheduling? Or could courts somehow force it to? If it's the former, I can't see any chance of it happening with the clown that is Leonhart at the helm. And I don't think Obama has any plans of replacing her. Edit: For those who haven't seen it, here is her testimony about Marijuana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrHecD8JhfY Butt Soup Barnes fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Clinton spoke extensively against the war on drugs in the documentary Breaking the Taboo that was just released. http://www.breakingthetaboo.info/
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Is the DEA the only group that could reschedule it/drop it from scheduling? Or could courts somehow force it to? Apparently the FDA also has powers of scheduling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Is the DEA the only group that could reschedule it/drop it from scheduling? Or could courts somehow force it to? The President could also unilaterally reschedule it with an executive order. Congress could pass a law to reschedule it, but the President can just write another executive order. He won't though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The thing is, I'm not seeing what they could schedule it to and still have it be (legally) available for recreational use. I guess in theory they could drop it from the scheduling all together but I don't think that would really be tenable, especially since there *are* some issues related with it (or at least people don't want underaged youth trying it). What issues are those? You realize alcohol is not scheduled, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
mitztronic posted:What issues are those? You realize alcohol is not scheduled, right? It's also a hell of a lot easier for a teenager to get weed than it is alcohol, and alcohol is the legal one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
mitztronic posted:What issues are those? You realize alcohol is not scheduled, right? Social stigma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:33
|
|