Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

RichieWolk: Jun 4, 2004; FUCK UNIONS

UNIONS R4 DRUNKS

FUCK YOU

wilfredmerriweathr posted:

It's a bit confusing because MJ is "prescribed" medically in a number of states.

Not quite. Doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend its use. Prescribing it would mean you could go to a pharmacy and they'd have to give you some weed.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 18:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 20:03

ChlamydiaJones: Sep 27, 2002; My Estonian riding instructor told me; "Mine munni ahvi t�ra imeja", and I live by that every day!; Ramrod XTreme

eviltastic posted:

Apologies for snipping just a section out of a useful post, but I gotta take issue with this. It really sounds to me like you're missing potential downsides of compiling this information because the data are so useful in aggregate. It's too easy to imagine situations where the individual is prejudiced by the availability of this information to some authority figure in question, be it a boss, the police, or whoever. For example, I'd bet that the list of daily smokers becomes a prime go-to for who to check out or raid for other drug charges, whether or not its use for that purpose is officially acceptable.

If you need a less speculative example: I am an attorney and our office handles some personal injury cases. Under a legal regime like that, we'd start routinely asking for that information during discovery, and if I found out someone smoked any substantial amount of weed I'd make drat sure to make an issue of it during settlement negotiations or trial. Even if a police report indicated a person wasn't intoxicated, it'd be worth bringing it up because of prejudice regarding cannabis use in my area.

It's really hard to trust that compiled information about individual recreational use of anything will be kept only for benign purposes.

It's a good point and I admit to my bias. My reasoning is based on finally putting to sleep the whole argument that dope is worse in some way than alcohol or cigarettes. If I can get a reasonable sample of consistent users I can look at health outcomes more clearly but you're exactly right that the likelihood of misuse of identifying data probably outweighs the public health benefits. I'll just recruit some of the new crop of users and do the study that way!

Another aspect of tracking use though is making it palatable to the people who oppose it. Like I posted a long while back in this thread, I spent election night with my county commissioner and a city council member talking about the real life implementation of 64. The city council member was working on the intoxication issue with the police and the commissioner was interested in the zoning issues. The zoning question is what I discussed with the urban planner from the post above. At the moment the consensus of the commissioners and the urban planning folks is that a dispensary is probably not a LULU right now BECAUSE of the requirement that users have a medical reason for use (however silly) and obey the laws about where and when they smoke - limited selling is politically palatable. There's also a requirement that you can only open a single dispensary I believe. Again, limitations are palatable and dispensaries have proliferated about as far as they can at present (due to zoning).

Part of the "regulate it like alcohol" approach suggests that dispensaries are poised to become VERY popular and VERY profitable but also become LULUs depending on how the law is implemented. "Not in my neighborhood" is a very strong political argument. Hickenloopers' special dope task force is going to have to recommend something realistic that is politically acceptable to everyone and zoning is probably where they're going with it. That's on the supply side, the demand side needs a political solution as well and it might not be limited to >18 with valid ID (even though it's stated that way in the law). If they take the existing system and remove the physician they can still tell any opponents that users can be tracked for abuse using the cards. Like I said, I agree that this will be abused but I think that it will probably happen that way. I would LOVE to be proved wrong in that because it's just a weed but if they DO regulate it then I want the data to PROVE that it's just a weed.

The thing is that none of this nit picking matters because;

quote:

(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.

should eventually result in Johnny Appleseed types returning the weed to its state as a naturally occurring weed.

As to your less speculative example; do you also present to the court the count of wine bottles in the recycling bin?

# ? Dec 12, 2012 18:33

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

SilentD posted:

I wonder how long that fix will last though. Opiate based drugs aren't all that hard to make on your own.

I remember when they cracked down on sudafed and ephidrine because you could turn it into meth pretty easily. It worked for a while, and then Mexican and other criminal cartels simply started making it on their own and the supply came back. However honest people can't buy cold medicine now without landing on some sort of list.

Well we are already seeing a switch to heroine since the price of a single Oxy pill is about a hundred bucks now versus 20 bucks for a hit of junk. It's going to be interesting to see how the landscape changes and what the effects are going to be. Mind you, the places where this is the most damaging are, predictably, the poorest backwardest most miserable places in the state so until something is done about that there's always going to be a substance problem, it's just a question of which substance. I honestly expect to see gas huffing take off like it did in the aborigine communities down in Australia by the time all is said and done.

RichieWolk posted:

Not quite. Doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend its use. Prescribing it would mean you could go to a pharmacy and they'd have to give you some weed.

Pharmacists don't have to give you poo poo no matter what prescription you have.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:01

RichieWolk: Jun 4, 2004; FUCK UNIONS

UNIONS R4 DRUNKS

FUCK YOU

Rhandhali posted:

Pharmacists don't have to give you poo poo no matter what prescription you have.

In Washington they do.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:16

SilentD: Aug 22, 2012; by toby

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

That's still a net positive because residential meth labs are serious problems for communities.

You can manufacture opiate based drugs really easily if you have poppies. Which aren't hard to grow or obtain.

I'm not sure of the legality of it other than it's ambiguous and caused problems. They don't want you making opium... on the other hand arresting little old ladies who don't know any better and grow them to make baked goods and flower arrangements leads to people thinking you've gone insane.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:22

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

RichieWolk posted:

In Washington they do.

That only refers to "moral or relgious" objections to filling a prescription. There's a difference between refusing to provide birth control because Ratzinger said that it makes baby jesus cry or whatever and not giving drugs to the guy who's shown up with three different oxycodone scripts this week.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:23

ChlamydiaJones: Sep 27, 2002; My Estonian riding instructor told me; "Mine munni ahvi t�ra imeja", and I live by that every day!; Ramrod XTreme

SilentD posted:

You can manufacture opiate based drugs really easily if you have poppies. Which aren't hard to grow or obtain.

I'm not sure of the legality of it other than it's ambiguous and caused problems. They don't want you making opium... on the other hand arresting little old ladies who don't know any better and grow them to make baked goods and flower arrangements leads to people thinking you've gone insane.

A guy I knew way back when was doing his anthropology masters project on opium manufacture by doing it himself using the methods of the 1860's. He was going to extended his work by smoking his own opium and then breaking his new habit. The title was going to be something like "Opium Cultivation, Processing, Use and Addiction". When I knew him he had completed harvesting some amount of poppies and had other fields planted around the state. I don't know if he actually got enough product to get addicted but he was one friggin motivated guy so I know he tried!

# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:55

Rigged Death Trap: Feb 13, 2012; BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

That's still a net positive because residential meth labs are serious problems for communities.

That's just outsourcing the serious problem to another country.
Not a net positive but a gross local only positive.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 20:44

SilentD: Aug 22, 2012; by toby

ChlamydiaJones posted:

A guy I knew way back when was doing his anthropology masters project on opium manufacture by doing it himself using the methods of the 1860's. He was going to extended his work by smoking his own opium and then breaking his new habit. The title was going to be something like "Opium Cultivation, Processing, Use and Addiction". When I knew him he had completed harvesting some amount of poppies and had other fields planted around the state. I don't know if he actually got enough product to get addicted but he was one friggin motivated guy so I know he tried!

Yeah I've got a friend who decided growing poppies was a grand idea (same with mushrooms and pot), but he's pretty "out there".

It's really easy to make opium, and from there morphine or whatever else you want. It just that it takes a lot of poppies to get a little morphine. In order to get any sort of volume it you'd have to grow so many of the plants someone would come pay you a visit and you'd better have a drat good excuse, like running a bagel factory or something.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 20:57

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Rhandhali posted:

A whole lot fewer here in Kentucky, ground zero of the oxycontin epidemic. Prescription opiate abuses kill just about as many people as cars do. That's a statewide statistic, county by county it can get even worse. They finally stopped with the "voluntary reporting" bullshit and now require that every prescriber and pharmacist register with KASPER, a statewide database. Every patient has a record of who writes what scripts and who filled them and when.

Providers are now liable if they provide a pain pill script to a patient who's seen three other doctors that week so database checks are now part of the medical record. They run checks on patients before wheeling them into surgery now. They also limited take-home scripts to a maximum 30 day supply. They're trying to get it so that you can't have freestanding pill mills anymore, "pain clinics" will have to be run in collaboration with a hospital instead of being freestanding businesses.

It's done a phenomenal job of driving up the prices and shriveling up the supply. The change was literally overnight, something like half of the pill mills shut down within days of the changes being implemented in July. Kentucky looks like it's going to be a model for cutting back on prescription drug abuse.

We're not talking about doctors that are giving you a couple of dozen tylenol IVs for your sprained ankle; this is poo poo like family medicine practitioners with no certification in chronic pain management slinging over half a million pills a year to less than 4000 patients.

So, in short, things are changing with regards to "BS Oxy scripts".

This is a terrible and obnoxious law that treats you and your doctor like a criminal whether you're getting large amounts of schedule II oxycontin or a couple of pills of a schedule IV benzo every 6 months for occasional panic attacks. I fully expect it to be rolled back soon when state legislators start getting the third degree about their ambien prescriptions.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 21:01

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

hobbesmaster posted:

This is a terrible and obnoxious law that treats you and your doctor like a criminal whether you're getting large amounts of schedule II oxycontin or a couple of pills of a schedule IV benzo every 6 months for occasional panic attacks. I fully expect it to be rolled back soon when state legislators start getting the third degree about their ambien prescriptions.

I wouldn't call a 15 second records check obnoxious. This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior.

And no, the legislators aren't going to reverse because they get harassed about their zolpidem. The law only applies to schedule II and schedule III drugs that have hydrocodone. Expect to see more laws like this in other states in the future.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 21:48

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 22 hours!

SilentD posted:

It's really easy to make opium, and from there morphine or whatever else you want. It just that it takes a lot of poppies to get a little morphine. In order to get any sort of volume it you'd have to grow so many of the plants someone would come pay you a visit and you'd better have a drat good excuse, like running a bagel factory or something.

There's the rub, and the reason it's only done in countries (or parts of countries) that are not subject to some sort of law enforcement. Even growing for personal use would require a field that would be a dead giveaway to any sort of overflight, or some sort of warehouse and enough power use to set off the alarm bells at your power company. Forget about doing any sort of surreptitious illicit commercial cultivation in most developed countries.

So yeah, most likely all the opiate junkies who were formerly getting a regular, reasonably priced, properly manufactured supply of their drug are going to pay a ton more to get the same or turn to hard(er) to obtain, grossly overpriced, cut to poo poo heroin, and they're going to start sharing needles and whatnot because good luck setting up harm reduction operations in the states we're talking about. Good times all around!

# ? Dec 12, 2012 21:55

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Rhandhali posted:

I wouldn't call a 15 second records check obnoxious. This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior.

And no, the legislators aren't going to reverse because they get harassed about their zolpidem. The law only applies to schedule II and schedule III drugs that have hydrocodone. Expect to see more laws like this in other states in the future.

HB1's reporting requirements applies to all prescriptions for all scheduled medicines schedules II through IV from fentanyl to ambien. Direct administration of everything but schedule II/schedule III w/hydrocodone does not have to be reported, but prescriptions certainly have to be.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 22:28

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

hobbesmaster posted:

HB1's reporting requirements applies to all prescriptions for all scheduled medicines schedules II through IV from fentanyl to ambien. Direct administration of everything but schedule II/schedule III w/hydrocodone does not have to be reported, but prescriptions certainly have to be.

I couldn't find any reference to schedule IV, zolpidem or any other schedule iv drugs in the KBML brief or in the text of the bill itself.

It appears to be an administrative regulation that was enacted under already existing powers granted to the board of medical licensure; HB1 just gave them a mandate to establish new standards. Which they did. Oh well.

About the only objectionable thing they've done is the requirement for a drug screening of chronic patients which is literally pissing money away. The only real advantage I can see is to make sure that they test positive for hydrocodone to make sure that they're not diverting their supply.

# ? Dec 12, 2012 23:36

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Rhandhali posted:

I couldn't find any reference to schedule IV, zolpidem or any other schedule iv drugs in the KBML brief or in the text of the bill itself.

It appears to be an administrative regulation that was enacted under already existing powers granted to the board of medical licensure; HB1 just gave them a mandate to establish new standards. Which they did. Oh well.

About the only objectionable thing they've done is the requirement for a drug screening of chronic patients which is literally pissing money away. The only real advantage I can see is to make sure that they test positive for hydrocodone to make sure that they're not diverting their supply.

Looks like all the annoying stuff is in the regulations:
http://www.kbml.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E94A6AE2-1BA6-4394-BF65-D866F732D497/0/201KAR9_260E.pdf

# ? Dec 12, 2012 23:41

EBT: Oct 29, 2005; by Ralp

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

There's the rub, and the reason it's only done in countries (or parts of countries) that are not subject to some sort of law enforcement. Even growing for personal use would require a field that would be a dead giveaway to any sort of overflight, or some sort of warehouse and enough power use to set off the alarm bells at your power company. Forget about doing any sort of surreptitious illicit commercial cultivation in most developed countries.

So yeah, most likely all the opiate junkies who were formerly getting a regular, reasonably priced, properly manufactured supply of their drug are going to pay a ton more to get the same or turn to hard(er) to obtain, grossly overpriced, cut to poo poo heroin, and they're going to start sharing needles and whatnot because good luck setting up harm reduction operations in the states we're talking about. Good times all around!

Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like)

# ? Dec 13, 2012 01:08

SilentD: Aug 22, 2012; by toby

EBT posted:

Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like)

They are fairly easy to get, but that's not the issue. Sure, poppy tea and even opium are piss easy to produce in your own kitchen. Morphine on the other hand, still doable in your own home, but the sheer amount of poppies you'd need to make any reasonable volume of it is the problem.

I'm pretty sure they're easy to get because the status on them has gone back and forth. They're widely used in decorative arrangements and opium poppies are the same ones you get poppy seeds and poppy oil from for baked goods from. Nobody wants to haul grandma off to prison for having a flower garden and baking a pastry for the grandchildren, the backlash would be insane.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 01:35

Kenshin: Jan 10, 2007

SilentD posted:

They are fairly easy to get, but that's not the issue. Sure, poppy tea and even opium are piss easy to produce in your own kitchen. Morphine on the other hand, still doable in your own home, but the sheer amount of poppies you'd need to make any reasonable volume of it is the problem.

I'm pretty sure they're easy to get because the status on them has gone back and forth. They're widely used in decorative arrangements and opium poppies are the same ones you get poppy seeds and poppy oil from for baked goods from. Nobody wants to haul grandma off to prison for having a flower garden and baking a pastry for the grandchildren, the backlash would be insane.

Unless of course Grandma isn't white

# ? Dec 13, 2012 01:49

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 22 hours!

EBT posted:

Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like)

You mean the thread full of people complaining about moldy poppies because the one or two people who were willing to skirt that grey area of the law have retired and/or moved on?

It doesn't happen inany sort of widespread scale in the US, almost all of the illicit opiates used in the US are imported from Afghanistan (with a small share from SE Asia), or diverted pharmaceuticals.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 02:25

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

That's only true for the east coast and other isolated pockets. West of the Mississippi the heroin comes from Mexico/further south.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 04:26

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Rhandhali posted:

This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior.

Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly? In a manner that is inconsistent with the 'opinion' of highly trained government bureaucrats, like errr... the DEA?

God help the doctor who doesn't subject his patients to the requisite level of surveillance or the pharmacist that doesn't dob in the doc who doesn't: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bush-should-feel-doctors-pain

Edit: Just out of curiosity, do you think it is 'irresponsible' for a shopkeeper to sell an individual [say] 5 cases of wine and half a dozen bottles of scotch whisky?

KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Dec 13, 2012

# ? Dec 13, 2012 07:20

Pedrophile: Feb 25, 2011; by angerbot

Personally I think the limit has more to do with preventing trafficking out of the legalized states than anything.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 17:57

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

KingEup posted:

Edit: Just out of curiosity, do you think it is 'irresponsible' for a shopkeeper to sell an individual [say] 5 cases of wine and half a dozen bottles of scotch whisky?

I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:17

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

KingEup posted:

Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly?

Defined by the law and regulations, which you should probably read? Mostly it's about doctors enabling people who are addicted to these painkillers instead of say trying to find a way to treat the dependency.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:30

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Delta-Wye posted:

I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me.

So yes, but only because your opinion is based on something stupid? Basically it is irresponsible because prohibition makes it irresponsible.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:40

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Install Gentoo posted:

Defined by the law and regulations, which you should probably read? Mostly it's about doctors enabling people who are addicted to these painkillers instead of say trying to find a way to treat the dependency.

Which is why they drafted regulations requiring regular medically unnecessary (and therefore not covered by insurance) urine screenings for recurring prescriptions for schedule IV substances such as ambien as well. Its not in the law, but it is in the regulations linked early.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:46

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Warchicken posted:

So yes, but only because your opinion is based on something stupid? Basically it is irresponsible because prohibition makes it irresponsible.

I would posit that bootleggers and smugglers moving alcohol in alaska are more like international arms dealers than anything. They're profiting off of destruction and misery; the fact it is booze and not AKs is sort of unimportant.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:48

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

30 Q&As about Amendment 64 and what happens next:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22184944/colorado-pot-legalization-30-questions-and-answers

quote:

The passage and governor's proclamation of Amendment 64 on Monday, which makes Colorado one of the first two states to legalize limited possession and sales of marijuana, has prompted a flood of questions about what happens now.
Herewith, some answers.

Question: Wait, is pot really legal?

Answer: Yes. But also no. It is now not against state law for people 21 and older in Colorado to use marijuana, to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up to six marijuana plants. It is also "not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law" � the words of the amendment � for one adult to give marijuana to another adult. But legal, recreational marijuana sales can only occur through licensed pot shops, which have yet to open.

The federal government, meanwhile, considers all marijuana possession, cultivation and distribution a crime, no matter what state law says.

Q: Do I need a license or a registration to possess marijuana?

A: No.

Q: So if a local police officer catches me with, say, a half ounce, they won't arrest or ticket me?

A: Not for marijuana they won't.

Q: What about two ounces?

A: Still illegal � unless you're a medical-marijuana patient. With the exception of the few allowances in the amendment, which supporters say cover the vast majority of people who get in trouble for marijuana, all other marijuana-related crimes remain in place.

Q: What about a pipe or a bong?

A: The amendment says that "possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories" is not a crime.

Attorney Rob Corry argues that Amendment 64 also makes marijuana paraphernalia legal under federal law in Colorado. The federal Controlled Substances Act says federal rules against drug paraphernalia don't apply to "any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items."

Q: So I can just smoke up wherever I want now?

A: No. The list of places where you can't smoke marijuana post-legalization is probably longer than the list of places where you can. You can't smoke at schools or on school grounds. You can't smoke in privately owned buildings where the owner doesn't want you to � and that includes apartment buildings or other rental properties where the landlord says pot is not allowed. You can't even possess marijuana in federal office buildings, courthouses, national parks or national forests.

And, most significantly, you can't smoke outdoors in public parks or on the sidewalk. The amendment says, "nothing in this section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others."
About the only place it is 100 percent clear you can smoke marijuana is in a free-standing home that you own.

Q: What if my home is a college dorm room?

A: Then you should trash your stash. Colleges and universities across Colorado have been uniform in saying that marijuana possession or use on campus � in the dorms and elsewhere � is not allowed. Even if you're over 21 and legal under state law to possess marijuana, you could still face school-code-of-conduct charges for possessing marijuana on campus.

Q: What about smoking inside marijuana-friendly businesses? Can somebody create a cannabis club?

A: Possibly. A lot will depend on the regulations the state and local governments adopt, but nothing in Amendment 64 says businesses can't allow people to bring in their own marijuana and smoke on site. In Washington, whose new marijuana-legalization law is similar in many ways to Colorado's, a bar owner is already doing just that.

Q: Do you have to be a Colorado resident for the law to apply to you?

A: Nope. Amendment 64's possession laws apply to everybody who is in Colorado at any given time � regardless of whether they live here full-time. And, when recreational marijuana stores open up in the state, the amendment's only requirement on their customers is to present "government-issued identification to determine the consumer's age."

Q: So, we're like the Amsterdam of the West now?

A: Actually, some advocates argue that Colorado now has more liberal marijuana laws than the famously dank destination. Amsterdam's cannabis coffee shops are really only half-legal, with marijuana sales in the Netherlands technically illegal. The Dutch government recently backed off a plan to prevent tourists from visiting the shops, but it is pursuing a ban on sales of high-potency marijuana.

In Colorado, at least, the legal place of marijuana stores is now written into the state's constitution. Regulations of the stores will have a big impact on what the market in Colorado looks like, but don't be surprised to see cannabis connoisseurs arriving at DIA, even though tourism boosters aren't thrilled at the idea.

Q: But there aren't currently any recreational marijuana stores, right? Can anyone over 21 shop at medical-marijuana dispensaries now?

A: Medical-marijuana dispensaries are for medical-marijuana patients only. Amendment 64 doesn't change who can shop there. Recreational stores � the kind provided for in Amendment 64 � won't open for about another year. They are the only places where legal, recreational marijuana sales can take place.

Q: How does this affect medical marijuana? Is that gone?

A: No. Medical marijuana is technically unaffected by the passage of Amendment 64. Medical-marijuana patients' cards are still valid. Medical-marijuana dispensaries can still sell only to patients. The entire system remains intact and separate from whatever recreational marijuana system develops.

Q: C'mon. Amendment 64 will have no impact on medical marijuana?

A: It would be silly to think the medical-marijuana system won't see a big change because of Amendment 64. If patients don't need to go see a doctor � and pay an examination fee � to legally possess marijuana, will they continue to do so? Will medical-marijuana business owners choose to continue catering to a customer base of about 100,000 people � when recreational stores can serve a customer base theoretically in the millions? Will the doctors who make most of their money writing medical-marijuana recommendations go out of business, and will the ones who only cautiously write recommendations now decide to stop writing them entirely?
Anticipating this instability, Amendment 64's authors built in an escape hatch for medical-marijuana dispensary owners: If dispensary owners choose to open a recreational store, they can jump to the front of the line and pay a reduced application fee.

Q: Why would anybody stick with medical marijuana now?

A: There are still advantages to remaining medical. Medical-marijuana patients would not have to pay the extra state excise tax that may be eventually levied on recreational marijuana. Medical-marijuana patients can possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana; they can also possess more and grow more than six plants if their doctors say they need to. People 18 and older � not 21 � can legally use medical-marijuana, and kids under 18 can use it to provided they meet some extra requirements.

Lastly, many people believe the federal government is less likely to crack down on the medical-marijuana industry.

Q: If I can't buy recreational marijuana for a year, where do I get it?

A: Amendment 64 creates two ways: either grow it yourself or get it from a friend. The amendment allows people to grow up to six plants � only three of which can be flowering, or ready for harvest, at any given time.

Importantly, you can't sell the marijuana you grow yourself. You can gift it to your friends, provided those friends are 21 or older. But selling it is a crime.
For those without green thumbs or horticulturally inclined friends, the next year will be what one Washington marijuana activist dubbed "the year of the magical ounce." (Washington has a similar valley between legalization and retail sales, though the state doesn't allow home growing.) Basically, if you have it � not matter how you got it � you can keep it.

Q: Can I get somebody to help me grow?

A: Yes. Amendment 64 says that "assisting another person who is 21 years of age or older" in growing, processing and transporting marijuana in compliance with the law is not illegal. The legal boundaries of that provision, though, are unclear.

Corry, the attorney, says it means that people can band together to form massive marijuana-growing cooperatives housed in a single warehouse. Others are more cautious. Brian Vicente, one of the amendment's authors, said at a recent forum that the creation of those kind of cooperatives might provoke a strong federal crackdown.

"We need to do this responsibly," he said.

Q: Can I grow marijuana in my backyard?

A: It's unclear, but very likely no. Marijuana home growing has to be done "in an enclosed, locked space" and "not conducted openly or publicly," according to the amendment. That may create wiggle room for marijuana to be grown in outdoor greenhouses, but it is unlikely to allow you to plant pot next to your rose bushes.

Q: What happens if the plants I grow produce more than I'm allowed to possess? Do I have to throw the extra away?

A: Home growers can keep all the marijuana their plants produce � even if it's more than an ounce. The amendment says "possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown" is legal.

Q: Are cities OK with residents setting up indoor gardens in their homes? What about code issues?

A: Cities haven't yet adopted rules on recreational home growing, but, based on the example of medical marijuana, it seems like they could. In 2010, for instance, Denver limited the number of plants medical-marijuana patients and caregivers could grow in their homes � citing concerns about odor, mold, fire and other potential problems.

Q: What else can cities do? Can they ban pot shops?

A: Yes. The amendment says cities can ban recreation marijuana stores, marijuana-products businesses and commercial cultivation facilities, either through an ordinance passed by the city council or through a vote of the residents. If they are banned by a vote, though, that vote has to happen during an even-year November election.

Short of a ban, cities can create local rules for marijuana stores and require local licenses. Cities can start issuing marijuana business licenses as early as Oct. 1, 2013.

Q: Why will it take a year for recreational marijuana stores to open?

A: The idea was to give the state time to get its act together, though state officials have said they won't have very much time at all. Both the legislature and the Department of Revenue must create rules for marijuana businesses by the summer, and the state has to start issuing licenses to the businesses by Jan. 1, 2014. That's a pretty tight time frame given that Amendment 64 doesn't spell out in much detail what the regulations should say.

Gov. John Hickenlooper has created a task force to put together the rules. Among the items the task force will consider, according to the executive order, are licensing and security requirements for marijuana stores, labeling and health standards for marijuana products, advertising restrictions and penalties for noncompliance.

Q: What will these stores look like? Could marijuana be sold at 7-Eleven?

A: The best guess is that recreational marijuana stores will look a lot like medical-marijuana stores. Because of the amount of regulations that seem likely to be imposed on the store, they will probably be specially devoted to selling marijuana and accessories. There's nothing right now that says somebody can't run a combination convenience store/pot shop, but it seems really doubtful anyone would.

Q: What will the federal government do about this?

A: Not nothing. But it's unclear how much of something.
Other than to re-iterate that they still consider marijuana illegal and still have the ability to enforce that, federal officials haven't said much about legalization. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Dec. 11 that the Justice Department will announce its plan of action "relatively soon." Reports, though, indicate Justice Department officials are still trying to figure out what to do.
One option is for the feds to file a lawsuit arguing that marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington are preempted by federal law. There is skepticism, though, that such a lawsuit would succeed.

The Justice Department could go around raiding marijuana stores. But the Justice Department has only so many people, and the federal government has generally dealt with medical-marijuana businesses with softer tactics. Local U.S. Attorney John Walsh, for instance, has previously sent letters to medical-marijuana dispensaries operating close to schools, telling those dispensaries to move or close.

Q: If the Justice Department doesn't do anything, does that mean the store owners can operate freely?

A: When it comes to dealing with people it considers criminals, the federal government has a lot of clubs in the bag. Some medical-marijuana dispensaries have been targeted for Internal Revenue Service audits. The federal government can also use banking regulations to hamper marijuana businesses.
Banks � worried about rules that prevent them from doing business with criminal organizations � have been reluctant to take on medical-marijuana dispensaries. That has left dispensaries scrambling for ways to take payments and pay bills and employees. Many operate cash-heavy or cash-only.

Q: So I'm going to have to take a fistful of cash with me to buy legal marijuana?

A: Looks like it. Some dispensaries have gotten creative with "cashless ATM" machines and other payment methods. But, when it comes to pot, cash is still king.

Q: Will the DEA arrest people for smoking pot?

A: Likely not. Drug Enforcement Administration officials have repeatedly said they don't focus on individual users. Nor do they have the resources to do so. But The New York Times has reported that federal officials have discussed arresting some users in Colorado and Washington in the hopes of using their cases to create some type of beneficial court precedent. The ability of the federal government to prosecute people for marijuana crimes in states where marijuana is legal, though, is not in dispute.

Q: So, if the feds probably won't bust individuals, then I've got nothing to worry about?

A: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Marijuana policy reaches into a surprising number of corners of the law. For instance, a guy in Denver legally growing medical-marijuana in his house was charged with felony child abuse because of the dangers prosecutors said the grow posed. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors and avoided jail.

Legal medical-marijuana use has become an issue in child-custody cases, and for people on probation. The Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled the medical-marijuana laws do not give people a right to pot in the state when it comes to their jobs. Another Court of Appeals case will decide whether state-legal medical-marijuana use can be considered lawful for all purposes under state law.

And, most importantly, employers appear to have the ability to fire people who use marijuana at any time.

Q: I can be fired for using marijuana even if I wasn't impaired on the job?

A: Amendment 64 says the measure doesn't require employers to tolerate marijuana "in the workplace" or "affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees." The question of whether somebody can be fired for off-duty marijuana use will likely be decided in the courts. But it's not looking good for marijuana-using employees.

Q: What about driving?

A: Driving impaired is illegal. Don't toke and drive. Prosecutors will continue charging and convicting people for driving under the influence of marijuana, and they have a high conviction rate for such cases.

Lawmakers this session will also look at giving prosecutors a shortcut to do so. In the previous two years, the state legislature has tried and failed to pass a bill setting a standard at which people would be considered too high to drive � similar to the .08 blood-alcohol level for drinking and driving. Supporters of a limit appear to have cracked the code this year, meaning drivers accused of being stoned behind the wheel will face an even tougher challenge in court.

Q: There seems to be a lot still up in the air. When will we know how this falls out?

A: It could be years.

The state has to have regulations for recreational marijuana stores in place by July 1 and has to start issuing licenses for the business by Jan. 1, 2014. Amendment 64's supporters hope an excise tax on recreational marijuana will go before the voters as early as November.

By the rules will likely evolve � the state is looking to rewrite its medical-marijuana business regulations already � and the legal challenges and debates will likely take months or longer to resolve. Meanwhile, comprehensive data showing how marijuana legalization has impacted teen use, crime rates, law-enforcement policy, tax receipts and many, many other areas are probably years off.
So, grab a chair, Colorado. This could take awhile.

Read more: Colorado pot legalization: 30 questions (and answers) - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22184944/colorado-pot-legalization-30-questions-and-answers#ixzz2ExULF7l6
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:48

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

KingEup posted:

Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly? In a manner that is inconsistent with the 'opinion' of highly trained government bureaucrats, like errr... the DEA?

God help the doctor who doesn't subject his patients to the requisite level of surveillance or the pharmacist that doesn't dob in the doc who doesn't: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bush-should-feel-doctors-pain

Edit: Just out of curiosity, do you think it is 'irresponsible' for a shopkeeper to sell an individual [say] 5 cases of wine and half a dozen bottles of scotch whisky?

Probably but that is an incredibly lovely analogy. The shopkeeper's only responsibility is to sling booze only to people who are legally allowed to have it. Someone can walk in with yellow eyes and the shopkeeper's only obligation is to check their ID.

And you seriously posted a link from the loving Cato institute? They're complaining about the injustice done William Hurwitz, who was convicted in a jury trial twice even after the first conviction was overturned. His own state medical board pulled his license when he killed two of his patients who overdosed. He gave prescriptions to patients in 39 states, many of whom he never even saw, examined or took a history from. He willingly took patients who are textbook drug seekers. He slung dope to people who claimed that "the only things that work are percosets", who had left other doctors because they weren't getting their opiates and who refused non opiate treatments. He was willfully blind to the fact that his patients were diverting his prescriptions which is what made him guilty.

Besides, the DEA doesn't have anything to do with the KASPER initiative except for defining what drugs are on the schedule. The regulations are put in place by the state medical board, which is overwhelmingly staffed by doctors with a couple of laymen.

I'll agree that the urine screens are overboard, even if they have a solid rationale behind them. Otherwise there is nothing in the regulations that is not consistent with good medical practice or that doesn't ensure good oversight that physicians themselves should be exercising. It protects physicians who can demonstrate solid evidence of good faith prescribing in the form of the KASPER report that is now part of a patient's medical record.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:57

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 22 hours!

Delta-Wye posted:

I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me.

Without arms dealers, warring parties would likely be limited to improvised weapons, reducing the amount of harm done in a conflict. Without drug smugglers (or prescription pill pushers, since that's who the analogy is about), addicts tend to turn to whatever else they can find, whether that means moonshine instead of smuggled booze or cut to poo poo heroin instead of high quality pharmaceuticals.

You don't have to look at everything so ideologically, sometimes a pragmatic approach is useful.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 22:28

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Without arms dealers, warring parties would likely be limited to improvised weapons, reducing the amount of harm done in a conflict. Without drug smugglers (or prescription pill pushers, since that's who the analogy is about), addicts tend to turn to whatever else they can find, whether that means moonshine instead of smuggled booze or cut to poo poo heroin instead of high quality pharmaceuticals.

You don't have to look at everything so ideologically, sometimes a pragmatic approach is useful.

Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK. :rolleyes:

The idea of prohibition doesn't offend me when it's done at such a local level (individual communities can decide how they wish to go on this particular issue) and importing booze illegally is straight up taking advantage of the situation and the people involved.

Can I not simultaneously think that people importing and distributing crack to the inner city are profitting off of spreading misery and are therefore evil, while also thinking that cocaine should be legalized?

# ? Dec 13, 2012 22:50

FutuerBear: Feb 22, 2006; Slippery Tilde

Rhandhali posted:

Probably but that is an incredibly lovely analogy. The shopkeeper's only responsibility is to sling booze only to people who are legally allowed to have it. Someone can walk in with yellow eyes and the shopkeeper's only obligation is to check their ID.

Just to clarify this first point, there are places with other responsibilities for the shopkeeper in addition to checking the age of the purchaser. For example, in Texas it is illegal for a shopkeeper to sell booze to people who are intoxicated. Which does sort of seem to enter the area of the seller making subjective judgements. The consequences of this include the seller of a drunk driver's last drink being criminally liable if that driver plows into another car and kills someone.

# ? Dec 13, 2012 22:54

312: Nov 7, 2012; I give terrible advice in E/N and post nothing worth anybody's time.

i might be a social cripple irl

Delta-Wye posted:

Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK.

OK so replace it with meth, which is incredibly common in rural everywhere. If prohibition is producing lovely results the scale is irrelevant.

But this started off about alcohol, and how poor people are apparently exploited if they try to buy it. So I guess you're OK with things like the Australian law that determined aboriginals shouldn't be allowed to drink? Bootleggers are the bad guys there too?

312 fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 00:56

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Delta-Wye posted:

Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK.

The idea of prohibition doesn't offend me when it's done at such a local level (individual communities can decide how they wish to go on this particular issue) and importing booze illegally is straight up taking advantage of the situation and the people involved.

Can I not simultaneously think that people importing and distributing crack to the inner city are profitting off of spreading misery and are therefore evil, while also thinking that cocaine should be legalized?

So tyranny of the majority is ok as long as it is a localized majority?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:02

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

312 posted:

OK so replace it with meth, which is incredibly common in rural everywhere. If prohibition is producing lovely results the scale is irrelevant.

But this started off about alcohol, and how poor people are apparently exploited if they try to buy it. So I guess you're OK with things like the Australian law that determined aboriginals shouldn't be allowed to drink? Bootleggers are the bad guys there too?

It's producing a lovely result, but is it producing more lovely results than problems it's relieving?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Alaska-puts-damper-on-alcohol-smuggling-3298276.php

Anyways, the bootleggers are bad guys there, undoubtably. This is not the same as "the Autralian law that determined aboriginals shouldn't be allowed to drink", as it is local communities defining their own rules. I don't see the situations as very similar because in one case it is a paternalistic government creating racist rules, in the other it is a small community determining their own community standards. People exploiting other people's situation for profit are still dirty bastards regardless of how "right" or "wrong" prohibition is though.

Warchicken posted:

So tyranny of the majority is ok as long as it is a localized majority?

How dare those people try and work to improve their communities. Keep in mind a lot of these places are ~100 people, all fairly interrelated. The situation is pretty complex, and while a dry village may not be the best solution, are you going to tell them they have to sell alcohol? Why can't they have their own self-determination on this matter? If they decide fairly that their community should be dry, wouldn't people undermining their self-determination be in the wrong?

Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:11

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Delta-Wye posted:

How dare those people try and work to improve their communities. Keep in mind a lot of these places are ~100 people all fairly interrelated. The situation is pretty complex, and while a dry village may not be the best solution, are you going to tell them they have to sell alcohol? Why can't they have their own self-determination on this matter? If they decide fairly that their community should be dry, wouldn't people undermining their self-determination be in the wrong?

No one is suggesting that businesses in dry counties HAVE to sell alcohol, only that it's wrong to say that businesses CAN'T. As a comparison, there's very few (if any) counties that totally ban cigarette sales. Even Massachusetts and San Francisco only ban cigarette sales in pharmacies.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:13

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Paul MaudDib posted:

No one is suggesting that businesses dry counties HAVE to sell alcohol, only that it's wrong to say that businesses CAN'T.

What the gently caress does this even mean?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:15

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Delta-Wye posted:

What the gently caress does this even mean?

Do I really have to explain this? Let's put it in terms of consuming alcohol instead of selling it.

Making it legal to consume alcohol does not make it mandatory to consume alcohol. A man from the government isn't going to come around every day and force you to drink a Bud while he watches.

Similarly, if no business owner in a county wants to sell alcohol, that's fine. It's a free country, no one is going to walk into Joe's Supermarket and order him to start carrying alcohol or get sued. But then you cross into affirmative territory, where you are telling a business owner who wants to sell alcohol that he can't. And that's a far cry from, as you said, "tell[ing] them they have to sell alcohol", which is not what blue laws are designed to prevent. Blue laws are about a majority of people telling the minority what they can and can't do with their own bodies, which is a common thread running through most of social conservatism.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:20

Kugyou no Tenshi: Nov 8, 2005; We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?

Delta-Wye posted:

What the gently caress does this even mean?

That "self-determination" is kind of meaningless when your method involves removing the capability of others within your community to self-determine on that very same issue? It's similar to how "right-to-work" laws function - rather than saying "businesses are allowed to choose not to enter into union shop contracts", you have created a law in which you have actually said "business are not allowed to enter into the contracts at all". You've actually removed all choice from the matter, and the only recourse a person in one of those communities has is to either break that law or leave the community. It leads to insular enclaves on either side of the fence, and incentivizes the black market.

Your reasoning is literally the same argument that's used to try to pressure abortion clinics out of entire states. Why should the self-determination of the majority view be allowed to undermine or even prohibit the self-determination of the minority?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 20:03

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Paul MaudDib posted:

Do I really have to explain this?

Yes? If you read it out loud, you'll find you've missed a word or have a typo or something, I'm literally not sure I understand what it says because I don't know what word is extraneous/missing/typo-ed/etc.

Paul MaudDib posted:

a common thread running through most of social conservatism.

A common thread running through most of libertarianism is dogmatically applying a political theory without consideration of the consequences. These small communities have personally weighed the pros and cons and decided the prohibition was preferable to having a wet community.

I would posit that your overbearing paternalistic mindset towards this issue is more similar to the Australian law (the details of which I am ignorant of, sadly) in mindset than their decision to enact prohibition.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

«‹›266 »