Drug legalization thread

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

«‹›266 »

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

ErichZahn posted:

Is this a legalistic argument or are you really that much of a dick?

What are you trying to imply?

# ? Apr 4, 2013 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:59

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

size1one posted:

It an illegal search when cops lie about smelling weed too but that doesn't stop them. It's still near zero risk to fish for arrests this way when weed is legal. Even if there is more chance that people will get charges dropped, not all will. I don't see any reason the practice will stop.

Don't forget, it's still illegal to carry more than an ounce in WA (not sure about CO).

As far as I know there is no penalty whatsoever regardless of what they do if they just claim they smelled weed or get a dog to mark. They can literally kick your door down, find nothing, and go 'Lol Oops well you flushed it before we could find it but we know :smug:

' and then leave you to fix your doorframe and whatever else they destroyed while searching.

Last I checked this was the case and I doubt it has changed.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 01:01

Inspector Hound: Jul 14, 2003

Warchicken posted:

As far as I know there is no penalty whatsoever regardless of what they do if they just claim they smelled weed or get a dog to mark. They can literally kick your door down, find nothing, and go 'Lol Oops well you flushed it before we could find it but we know ' and then leave you to fix your doorframe and whatever else they destroyed while searching.

Last I checked this was the case and I doubt it has changed.

This and other things you are alluding to are the more horrifying consequences suffered by victims of the drug war, and are not fixed by 64, but this is a first step towards ending them. When marijuana is treated like alcohol, these things may go away (they will still be treated by law enforcement as indicators of other criminal wrongdoings for a while). That will just take time.

ErichZahn posted:

Is this a legalistic argument or are you really that much of a dick?

I have no idea how "legalistic" his argument is, but he is probably trying to point out that many prescription substances can impair your ability to drive, and that impairment is enough to at least ticket you for endangering other drivers.

Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 01:39

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

size1one posted:

It an illegal search when cops lie about smelling weed too but that doesn't stop them. It's still near zero risk to fish for arrests this way when weed is legal. Even if there is more chance that people will get charges dropped, not all will. I don't see any reason the practice will stop.

Because if weed is legal then saying "I smell pot" isn't a valid excuse to search property? Sure, cops lie about it now but the lie is impossible to prove so whatever evidence they get in the search will be admissible in court but, post legalization, what are they going to do, be all like "I smell a perfectly legal substance!" and toss your poo poo? Why? Whatever they find would be immediately thrown out of court if "smelled marijuana" is listed as probable cause. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to find another excuse, but pot specifically has been the go-to for cops who want to do blind fishing expeditions and taking that away would make it harder.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:07

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Because if weed is legal then saying "I smell pot" isn't a valid excuse to search property? Sure, cops lie about it now but the lie is impossible to prove so whatever evidence they get in the search will be admissible in court but, post legalization, what are they going to do, be all like "I smell a perfectly legal substance!" and toss your poo poo? Why? Whatever they find would be immediately thrown out of court if "smelled marijuana" is listed as probable cause. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to find another excuse, but pot specifically has been the go-to for cops who want to do blind fishing expeditions and taking that away would make it harder.

Federal law.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:30

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Warchicken posted:

Federal law.

Yes, it would still be a concern if you were pulled over by the FBI, sure.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:35

Mrit: Sep 26, 2007; by exmarx; Grimey Drawer

Warchicken posted:

Federal law.

Except the cops in WA(and maybe Colorado) have already said they won't use the smell of pot as reasonable cause.

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/11/09/marijwhatnow-a-guide-to-legal-marijuana-use-in-seattle/

quote:

What happens if I get pulled over and I�m sober, but an officer or his K9 buddy smells the ounce of Super Skunk I�ve got in my trunk?

Under state law, officers have to develop probable cause to search a closed or locked container. Each case stands on its own, but the smell of pot alone will not be reason to search a vehicle. If officers have information that you�re trafficking, producing or delivering marijuana in violation of state law, they can get a warrant to search your vehicle.

Edit: You know, I keep finding this stuff on Google in about 15 seconds, maybe you could all research a bit before you panic.

Mrit fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:37

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.

What's with this?

http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/

I was under the impression that the majority of Republicans were all 'states rights' advocates.

# ? Apr 5, 2013 20:34

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

57% is still fairly high, especially when you look at how many Republicans think it should be illegal.

# ? Apr 5, 2013 20:38

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

KingEup posted:

What's with this?

http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/

I was under the impression that the majority of Republicans were all 'states rights' advocates.

The majority of republicans are all 'gently caress liberals and anything they like', and literally have no other guiding principal of any kind.

# ? Apr 5, 2013 22:08

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.

Warchicken posted:

The majority of republicans are all 'gently caress liberals and anything they like', and literally have no other guiding principal of any kind.

Speaking of which:

quote:

The GOP's Drug-Testing Dragnet

The annual Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) conference, held in 2012 in San Antonio, Texas, looks like any other industry gathering. The 600 or so attendees sip their complimentary Starbucks coffee, munch on small plates of muffins and fresh fruit, and backslap old acquaintances as they file into a sprawling Marriott hotel conference hall. They will hear a keynote address by Robert DuPont, who served as drug policy director under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Nothing odd about any of this until you consider that the main subject of the conference is urine.

Seventy-seven years old, DuPont adopts the air of a sprightly televangelist as he outlines what he calls �the new battle lines� in the war on drugs, one that �begins with kids.� At the climax of his speech, DuPont offers �the new paradigm� of drug treatment: a program that one controversial Hawaiian judge administers to all drug-addicted probationers he oversees. �If they test positive,� he says, his voice slowly rising into a high-pitched yell, �they go to jail that day! No discussion!� No discretion! To jail that day!�

As DuPont finishes his speech, the hundreds of drug-testing company representatives in the audience rise to give him a standing ovation.

DuPont is in an expansive mood following his speech. Since the 1980s, he has been in the business of selling drug-testing services to employers. As far as he�s concerned, drug tests should be given to �anybody who receives a benefit,� from unemployment insurance to welfare. �Test �em all!� he exclaims.

This may sound overzealous, but Republican lawmakers around the country are already enthusiastically embracing the idea of making clean urine a condition of receiving public benefits. Since 2011, seven states have passed laws mandating drug tests for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) applicants and recipients, and in 2012 at least twenty-five other states considered proposals to tie welfare cash assistance, and in some cases also food stamps, to drug tests. In February 2012, Congress passed a law paving the way for states to urine-test the recipients of unemployment benefits seeking work in sectors where such screenings are required. Since then, sixteen states have considered laws tying unemployment insurance benefits to drug tests.

http://www.thenation.com/article/173654/gops-drug-testing-dragnet?page=0,0

Look at the way this cocksucker celebrates interfering with peoples bodily fluids all so he can gently caress them over to line his own pockets.

KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Apr 6, 2013

# ? Apr 5, 2013 23:10

Qu Appelle: Nov 3, 2005; "If a COVID-19 pandemic occurs, public health officials may have additional instructions, such as avoiding close contact with others as much as possible, and staying home if someone in your household is sick." - Official insights from Public Health: Seattle & King County staff

Interesting problem that medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington State are having: banks won't let them deposit their cash proceeds in accounts, because the physical paper cash absorbs odors, and thus smells like pot. This potentially leaves the banks open to Federal charges of money laundering and/or accepting money from an illegal business.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Big-dilemma-Banks-wont-take-money-that-smells-like-marijuana-201712241.html

# ? Apr 6, 2013 02:48

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

quote:

Davis knows that first hand. He's had his business checking, and credit card accounts shut down once the banks found out he runs a West Seattle medical marijuana access point. Banks don't anything to do with pot.

I don't really see how the odor of marijuana comes into it. Banks don't want to be associated with businesses that are illegal under federal law.

edit: I guess it makes it so you can't hide where the money comes from, but if it's a business account you'd have to tell them in the first place, right?

# ? Apr 6, 2013 02:51

Mrit: Sep 26, 2007; by exmarx; Grimey Drawer

Sounds like they really need to do some money laundering. :razz:

# ? Apr 6, 2013 03:43

Qu Appelle: Nov 3, 2005; "If a COVID-19 pandemic occurs, public health officials may have additional instructions, such as avoiding close contact with others as much as possible, and staying home if someone in your household is sick." - Official insights from Public Health: Seattle & King County staff

Xandu posted:

I don't really see how the odor of marijuana comes into it. Banks don't want to be associated with businesses that are illegal under federal law.

edit: I guess it makes it so you can't hide where the money comes from, but if it's a business account you'd have to tell them in the first place, right?

I could see your point.

But apparently it is actually the physical odor of the money.

Personally, I don't see why they don't either wash it, and/or deposit via ATM. Then all the money will smell like pot, and banks may not be able to narrow it down. But apparently this is becoming a big deal, to the point where dispensaries in Seattle fear being targets of thieves because they have to store their cash onsite.

I wonder if a dispensary could go credit only.

And here's another news story on it: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Pot-industry-struggles-banks-business-problems-201727341.html

Qu Appelle fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Apr 6, 2013

# ? Apr 6, 2013 06:48

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

KingEup posted:

Speaking of which:

Look at the way this cocksucker celebrates interfering with peoples bodily fluids all so he can gently caress them over to line his own pockets.

Is this dude related to the DuPont family/chemical company? Because that would make sense if he was born and bred in that environment (they are somewhat responsible for cannabis prohibition in the first place.)

# ? Apr 6, 2013 14:49

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.

quote:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) � The Idaho Court of Appeals has overturned the conviction of a Boise man for driving under the influence of marijuana, a rare reversal for a kind of case legal experts say is typically settled by the science of blood testing.

In a decision issued late last week, the court reversed Geirrod Stark's 2010 misdemeanor conviction on grounds that the blood tests taken after his arrest only proved he had used marijuana recently, not on the specific day he was pulled over by police. http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2013/apr/08/idaho-court-appeals-overturns-marijuana-dui-conviction/

This is rather delightful news given the proclivity of this thread to discuss driver impairment.

Another contender for worst anti-legalisation op-ed: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/article_4b7ffc76-5cab-5569-a101-fbdba63e2c14.html

KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Apr 9, 2013

# ? Apr 9, 2013 08:17

Stormfang1502: Jan 26, 2003; The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on.

KingEup posted:

Another contender for worst anti-legalisation op-ed: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/article_4b7ffc76-5cab-5569-a101-fbdba63e2c14.html

Nice! His "argument" seems to be that cannabis should not be legalized or decriminalized because tobacco companies obscured information regarding their product and cannabis will be done the same way.

# ? Apr 10, 2013 20:40

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Stormfang1502 posted:

Nice! His "argument" seems to be that cannabis should not be legalized or decriminalized because tobacco companies obscured information regarding their product and cannabis will be done the same way.

'We've made sure the tobacco industry is poorly regulated, and we'll make sure cannabis is too, so it should stay illegal!'

Wrap it up, libtards, you've been bested in the arena of intellectual discourse by this giant of reason and logic.

# ? Apr 10, 2013 21:04

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

KingEup posted:

This is rather delightful news given the proclivity of this thread to discuss driver impairment.

Another contender for worst anti-legalisation op-ed: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/article_4b7ffc76-5cab-5569-a101-fbdba63e2c14.html

In the sense of "Once pandora's box is open, we're never going to be able to close it again", I kind of get and agree with his argument. Once a powerful lobby exists it'll be an uphill battle at best to try to keep it under control. The problem is that Marijuana is already everywhere, even in schools and prisons, and aside from "is illegal", it's completely loving unregulated right now. Even the kind of weak regulatory bodies that control cigarettes in the United States still keep the product to certain standards and make sure it's not being adulterated or sold to kids. The people who are against legalization seem to have this fingers-in-the-ears mentality, where Marijuana is only used by a small, extreme, but very loud minority of people and that as long as we keep it illegal, we keep it "off the streets". They have a mental image of a "pot head", a grungy hippy that works at a head shop if he works at all.

Mirthless fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Apr 10, 2013

# ? Apr 10, 2013 21:14

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.

Mirthless posted:

In the sense of "Once pandora's box is open, we're never going to be able to close it again", I kind of get and agree with his argument. Once a powerful lobby exists it'll be an uphill battle at best to try to keep it under control.

A powerful industry already exists. This industry has no qualms about beheading their competitors and recruiting child soldiers.

# ? Apr 11, 2013 00:24

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

KingEup posted:

A powerful industry already exists. This industry has no qualms about beheading their competitors and recruiting child soldiers.

Yeah, no, I understand that. From the viewpoint of someone who seems to think that making something illegal makes it inaccessible, it's a worthwhile argument - we allowed tobacco to be legal when we didn't understand it, and now a powerful lobby stands behind it keeping legislation from regulating it any further. The problem is, making something illegal doesn't make it inaccessible, or even hard to get. Instead, we get a black market behind it that the government is powerless to stop, and they protect their investment not through lobbying, but through wholesale murder. At the end of the day, people are still getting pot. At this point, the only way we're going to get any kind of regulation is through legalization.

Mirthless fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 11, 2013

# ? Apr 11, 2013 00:35

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

New research about cannabis' potential use as cancer treatment:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=7235037&page=1

quote:

WEDNESDAY, April 1 (HealthDay News) -- New research out of Spain suggests that THC -- the active ingredient in marijuana -- appears to prompt the death of brain cancer cells.

The finding is based on work with mice designed to carry human cancer tumors, as well as from an analysis of THC's impact on tumor cells extracted from two patients coping with a highly aggressive form of brain cancer.

Explaining that the introduction of THC into the brain triggers a cellular self-digestion process known as "autophagy," study co-author Guillermo Velasco said his team has isolated the specific pathway by which this process unfolds, and noted that it appears "to kill cancer cells, while it does not affect normal cells."

Velasco is with the department of biochemistry and molecular biology in the School of Biology at Complutense University in Madrid. The findings were published in the April issue of The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The Spanish researchers focused on two patients suffering from "recurrent glioblastoma multiforme," a fast-moving form of brain cancer. Both patients had been enrolled in a clinical trial designed to test THC's potential as a cancer therapy.

Using electron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while it left healthy cells intact.

The team also was able, in what it described as a "novel" discovery, to track the signaling route by which this process was activated.

These findings were replicated in work with mice, which had been "engineered" to carry three different types of human cancer tumor grafts.

"These results may help to design new cancer therapies based on the use of medicines containing the active principle of marijuana and/or in the activation of autophagy," Velasco said.

Outside experts suggested that more research is needed before advocating marijuana as a medicinal intervention for brain cancer.

Dr. John S. Yu, co-director of the Comprehensive Brain Tumor Program in the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said the findings were "not surprising."

"There have been previous reports to this effect as well," he said. "So this is yet another indication that THC has an anti-cancer effect, which means it's certainly worth further study. But it does not suggest that one should jump at marijuana for a potential cure for cancer, and one should not urge anyone to start smoking pot right away as a means of curing their own cancer."

But that's exactly what many brain cancer patients have been doing, said Dr. Paul Graham Fisher, the Beirne Family director of Neuro-Oncology at Stanford University.

"In fact, 40 percent of brain tumor patients in the U.S. are already using alternative treatments, ranging from herbals to vitamins to marijuana," he said. "But that actually points out a cautionary tale here, which is that many brain cancer patients are already rolling a joint to treat themselves, but we're not really seeing brain tumors suddenly going away as a result, which we clearly would've noticed if it had that effect. So we need to be open-minded. But this suggests that the promise of THC might be a little over-hoped, and certainly requires further investigation before telling people to go out and roll a joint."

Also, looks like it's a greenlight for stoned skiing hopefully by the '14 spring season! Gonna be funny watching a bunch of lowlanders come to 10,000 ft and get stoned out of their gourds.

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20130410/NEWS/130409867/1078&ParentProfile=1055

quote:

BRECKENRIDGE - Summit County Commissioners decided unanimously Tuesday not to �opt out' of Amendment 64's legalization of recreational marijuana use and sales, citing the overwhelming support for the measure among local voters in November. In Summit County, the measure won with a landslide 77 percent of the vote.

# ? Apr 12, 2013 19:31

goku im piss: Mar 18, 2005; Your mama was a snowblower

Warchicken posted:

The majority of republicans are all 'gently caress liberals and anything they like', and literally have no other guiding principal of any kind.

More like Neo-Conservatives, which are just as bad as Neo-Liberals.

A large amount of Independents who vote Republican don't give a poo poo about drug laws. They believe its a waste of government resources, along with being pointless.

A good chunk of them believe that it should be legal,regulated, and taxed.

Edit: This isn't a uncommon train of thought. Independents who actually believe in the small government, less regulation, helping the free market grow, ideals that the republicans are supposed to stand up for. Drug law reform is part of that. So is Equal rights, Marriage equality, Reproductive rights.Less government intrusion into your life. Neo-conservatism combined with the fundamentalist christian-right are the ones who turned the Republican party into a lot of the poo poo-fest it is today.

goku im piss fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Apr 13, 2013

# ? Apr 13, 2013 10:48

Aves Maria!: Jul 26, 2008; Maybe I'll drown

goku im piss posted:

More like Neo-Conservatives, which are just as bad as Neo-Liberals.

A large amount of Independents who vote Republican don't give a poo poo about drug laws. They believe its a waste of government resources, along with being pointless.

A good chunk of them believe that it should be legal,regulated, and taxed.

I don't really see what neoconservatism has to do with belief in the efficacy of drug laws. The popular modern definition of neoconservative deals almost exclusively with aggressive foreign policy and saber-rattling. Modern neoconservatives tend to also be neoliberals, by the by. Plenty of non-neocons have an apprehensive view on drugs and the two ideas really do not intersect when dealing with domestic drug policy.

# ? Apr 13, 2013 15:24

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.

Police Chief admits to driving whilst stoned out of his mind:

http://gawker.com/5994598/ohio-police-accidentally-chief-eats-daughters-weed+cake-goes-insane

# ? Apr 15, 2013 01:03

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

KingEup posted:

Police Chief admits to driving whilst stoned out of his mind:

http://gawker.com/5994598/ohio-police-accidentally-chief-eats-daughters-weed+cake-goes-insane

Breaking: Ohio Police Chief 1/40th As Bad As Lex Luthor

Seriously though why in the world would you wake up and eat your daughter's whole cake? Maybe he had a few slices the night before too?

# ? Apr 15, 2013 01:05

Mirthless: Mar 27, 2011; by the sex ghost

Paul MaudDib posted:

Breaking: Ohio Police Chief 1/40th As Bad As Lex Luthor

Seriously though why in the world would you wake up and eat your daughter's whole cake? Maybe he had a few slices the night before too?

I suspect he ate a piece for breakfast, took a shower and got dressed, and then suddenly he was taken by a sudden, and strange hunger.

# ? Apr 15, 2013 03:32

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.

So the congressional research service has weighed in on the preemption thing:

quote:

In Section 708 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. �903), Congress specifically articulated the degree to which federal law was to preempt state controlled substances laws. This express preemption61
provision recites language that evokes the principles of conflict preemption, stating,

No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.62

Notably, the provision clarifies that Congress did not intend to entirely occupy the regulatory field concerning controlled substances or wholly supplant traditional state authority in the area. Indeed, Congress expressly declined to assert field preemption as grounds for preempting state law under the CSA. The Supreme Court has stated that this provision suggests that Congress �explicitly contemplate[d] a role for the States in regulating controlled substances.�63 As such, the preemptive effect of the CSA is not as broad as congressional authority could have allowed. States remain free to pass laws relating to marijuana, or other controlled substances, so long as they do not create a �positive conflict� with federal law, such that the two laws �cannot consistently stand together"...

Under both Tenth Amendment and preemption principles, federal and state courts have previously held that a state�s decision to simply permit what the federal government prohibits does not create a �positive conflict� with federal law.85 As discussed above, under the impossibility prong of conflict preemption, the Supreme Court has specifically held that so long as an individual is not compelled by state law to engage in conduct prohibited by federal law, then simultaneous compliance with both laws is not �impossible.�86

...

It is well established that treaties, like federal statutes, may preempt conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause expressly provides that in addition to federal law, �all treaties made � under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.�138 Therefore, a state law is generally preempted to the same degree whether it is in conflict with a federal statute or an international treaty obligation. However, not all treaties are accorded �automatic� preemptive effect.139 Only where a treaty �constitute[s] binding federal law,� without the �aid of any [implementing] legislative provision,� does it qualify as the �Supreme law of the land� for preemption purposes.140 Such treaties are known as �self-executing� treaties�meaning an international agreement with �automatic domestic effect as federal law upon ratification.�141 [...]

�neither the Single Convention nor the other international drug control treaties appear to be �self-executing.� Each treaty requires the signatory nation to give legal effect to the goals of the treaty through domestic implementing legislation. The provisions of the treaties do not themselves establish binding domestic law. The United
States, for example, implemented the obligations of these treaties through the CSA.145 Because these treaties do not create binding law �of [their] own force,� it would appear unlikely that a U.S. court would accord the treaties direct preemptive effect.146 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf

# ? Apr 16, 2013 21:02

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

So if my layman's reading of that is correct, states can legalize and tax if they want (so long as they themselves aren't breaking Federal law), with the caveat that there's of course no protection for individuals from Federal prosecution.

Well, that pretty much clears the way for taxing, at least. I'm pretty sure states used to issue tax stamps for banned substances (some still do), and the only difference would be that they have taken their possession/sale laws off the books for these substances.

# ? Apr 16, 2013 21:16

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Owns:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_23039897/boulder-approves-pot-use-adults-private-property

quote:

Adults will be able to smoke marijuana on private property in Boulder, even if their neighbors are able to see them, and people younger than 21 caught with pot will be treated like underage drinkers.

The Boulder City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to adopt new marijuana ordinances in light of Amendment 64, which legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana and directed the state Legislature to come up with a regulatory framework for retail sales.

Boulder is waiting to develop rules for marijuana stores until the state decides what its regulations and licensing procedures will be.

For now, the city is adopting new ordinances saying marijuana cannot be smoked in public or by people under 21.

In response to earlier concerns about the definitions of public and private, the ordinance was clarified to say that marijuana can be consumed on private property, like in a backyard, even if neighbors might see or smell it.

Amendment 64 applies to people 21 and older. The ordinances adopted Tuesday will treat underage use of marijuana similar to underage drinking.

People between ages 18 and 21 will still have the right to use marijuana if they have a medical card. If someone is accused of underage pot use and intends to present a medical defense, he or she will be asked to present that before trial to avoid unnecessary legal costs for the city.

# ? Apr 17, 2013 17:02

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

Paul MaudDib posted:

So if my layman's reading of that is correct, states can legalize and tax if they want (so long as they themselves aren't breaking Federal law), with the caveat that there's of course no protection for individuals from Federal prosecution.

This can get tricky because a lot of the state legalization isn't just about not prosecuting people. We'd also like to have a coherent regulatory scheme, and that often involves telling some official to take an affirmative action. For example, the Oregon law involving medical marijuana contains this provision:

quote:

...No such property interest may be forfeited under any provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense. Usable marijuana and paraphernalia used to administer marijuana that was seized by any law enforcement office shall be returned immediately upon a determination by the district attorney in whose county the property was seized, or the district attorney�s designee, that the person from whom the marijuana or paraphernalia used to administer marijuana was seized is entitled to the protections contained in ORS 475.300 to 475.346.

Would make sense that the cops have to give it back if someone's following state law, right? But putting it back in their hands means federal law's being broken, so the police had to stop returning it.

It's not easy to come up with a scheme of regulation for the production, sale, and distribution of something people are going to consume without at some point saying "go do thus and such thing".

# ? Apr 17, 2013 17:51

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I SHOULD BE FUCKING PERMABANNED BUT IN THE MEANTIME ASK ME ABOUT MY FAILED KICKSTARTER AND RUNNING OFF WITH THE MONEY

eviltastic posted:

It's not easy to come up with a scheme of regulation for the production, sale, and distribution of something people are going to consume without at some point saying "go do thus and such thing".

And on that note WSLCB has sent out its announcement that license rule drafting has begun, as well as a timeline update. They are dragging their heels a little less than I thought, since they've decided to take all input and amendment requests from stakeholders BEFORE they file.

quote:

Dear I-502 Stakeholders,
The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) today adopted its official timeline for implementing I-502. This replaces the tentative timeline that has been posted on our website since December.
This official timeline is based on input from the public forums, our research, and all that we�ve learned in the months since the November election. The WSLCB is on track to meet the December 1 deadline required by I-502.
Key Elements of the Official Timeline
� The WSLCB will begin vetting draft rules with stakeholders in mid-May. This means that we will send draft rules via the Listserv to get your input before formally filing draft rules in mid-June. After you officially file draft rules � it�s called a CR 102 � any significant changes require the agency to start the process over. By vetting the rules with stakeholders before filing the CR 102 the process will be more efficient.

� The draft rules will be for all license types rather than one at a time. This means that any potential licensee will have a view of the entire recreational marijuana business landscape before deciding whether to apply for a license.

� Under this timeline, the rules will be effective in August, the WSLCB will accept applications for all license types in September and issue licenses as early as December 1, 2013.
Thank you again for subscribing to the I-502 listserv.

Official Timeline Adopted April 17, 2013
The below timeline is the Washington State Liquor Control Board�s (WSLCB) official timeline for implementation of Initiative 502. The Board and staff are working from this timeline going forward. By law, the WSLCB must have the rules written by December 1, 2013. The agency is on track to meet this deadline.
If and/or when timeframes change we will communicate those changes via the WSLCB Listserv and our agency Twitter.

Date (2013) Milestone
Mid May Send draft rules to stakeholders for comment
Mid June CR102 (draft rules) filed for the Producer, Processor and Retailer Licenses. The CR102 allows the WSLCB to seek public comment on draft rule language developed with input from the public during the initial comment period.*
Small Business Economic Impact Statement issued with CR 102.
Late July Public hearing/s on rules for the Producer, Processor and Retailer Licenses allowing the public to comment on the draft rule language.
Rules adopted.
Late August Rules become effective.
September WSLCB begin accepting Producer, Processor and Retail License applications.
December 1 Rules are complete (as mandated by law). WSLCB begins issuing Producer, Processor and Retail licenses to qualified applicants.

* Should the draft rules need substantial changes after submitting for comment, the WSLCB is required by law to resubmit the CR 102. Resubmitting the CR 102 could move the license issuance date to late December 2013.
For more information on the implementation of I502 and to join our listserv to receive email updates, please visit our website at https://www.liq.wa.gov.
###

If you want a chance to have some input on Washington's licensing scheme for marijuana (and you live there or pay taxes there), now is the time to sign up.

# ? Apr 17, 2013 18:43

Cockmaster: Feb 24, 2002

eviltastic posted:

This can get tricky because a lot of the state legalization isn't just about not prosecuting people. We'd also like to have a coherent regulatory scheme, and that often involves telling some official to take an affirmative action. For example, the Oregon law involving medical marijuana contains this provision:

Would make sense that the cops have to give it back if someone's following state law, right? But putting it back in their hands means federal law's being broken, so the police had to stop returning it.

It's not easy to come up with a scheme of regulation for the production, sale, and distribution of something people are going to consume without at some point saying "go do thus and such thing".

Would it really be that hard to set things up so that the people responsible for enforcing the regulations don't have to actually handle marijuana at any point?

# ? Apr 18, 2013 19:56

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

Longanimitas posted:

Synthetics are awful, even if they can be fun. One of legalization's many benefits will be the elimination of poo poo like "spice."

That's just not true, though, since you can't get or keep many jobs if you have smoked marijuana within a month or so (or three months with a hair test), regardless of legality.

# ? Apr 18, 2013 20:09

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Radbot posted:

That's just not true, though, since you can't get or keep many jobs if you have smoked marijuana within a month or so (or three months with a hair test), regardless of legality.

This is changing, albeit slowly. The Seattle police relaxed their drug testing policy in regards to marijuana after the vote, that's huge.

# ? Apr 18, 2013 20:25

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007

Vermont just decriminalized.

I've posted a link to this site before, but here's a good example of their coverage:

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/2013/04/17/legislative-update-marijuana-bills-advancing-in-maryland-nevada-ny-other-states/

# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:06

RichieWolk: Jun 4, 2004; FUCK UNIONS

UNIONS R4 DRUNKS

FUCK YOU

Radbot posted:

That's just not true, though, since you can't get or keep many jobs if you have smoked marijuana within a month or so (or three months with a hair test), regardless of legality.

Probably safer to just go nuts on LSD and mushrooms than spice. gently caress that synthetic poo poo.

# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:28

hepatizon: Oct 27, 2010

redshirt posted:

Vermont just decriminalized.

I've posted a link to this site before, but here's a good example of their coverage:

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/2013/04/17/legislative-update-marijuana-bills-advancing-in-maryland-nevada-ny-other-states/

I don't see the mention of Vermont on that page.

# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:59

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007

hepatizon posted:

I don't see the mention of Vermont on that page.

Oops! Bad info on my part! It passed the VT house, and is onto the Senate. Here:
http://www.vnews.com/news/state/region/5680839-95/vermont-house-approves-marijuana-decriminalization

# ? Apr 18, 2013 21:48

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

«‹›266 »