|
Illinois is in the process of medical marijuana legalization http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-use-lou-lang/2 The house was the toughest hurdle apparently, and I think Quinn will sign it into law.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
This twitter exchanges is rather amusing: https://twitter.com/KevinSabet/status/324656207266734080 Former government drugs advisor Kevin Sabet says Obama's current drug Czar (Director Gil Kerlikowske) 'opposes legalisation'. Someone points out that he has to because it's part of his job description: quote:Responsibilities. –The Director– [...] Kevin Sabet then says this just making a "mountain out of a molehill".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Colorado and Washington are playing major league soccer against each other tomorrow, 4/20. They're calling it the "Cannabis Cup."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Speaking of drug regulation, why don't we allow dentists to act as dispensaries and prescribe cocaine? They already have a dental diluted version of it for dental use and they're already covered by the DEA scheduling so it would be pretty easy for a state to adopt it. edit: It's funny, under current scheduling laws dentists would have more protection giving out cocaine than the MMJ doctors do with their dispensaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Speaking of drug regulation, why don't we allow dentists to act as dispensaries and prescribe cocaine? They already have a dental diluted version of it for dental use and they're already covered by the DEA scheduling so it would be pretty easy for a state to adopt it. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178175575/shots-fired-at-colorado-pot-gathering So somebody shot two people at a massive 4/20 rally in Denver, and of course... quote:A citizen advocacy group that opposes marijuana legalization, Smart Colorado, warned in a statement that public 4/20 celebrations "send a clear message to the rest of the nation and the world about what Colorado looks like." Makes sense to me! In related news, Boston prepares to ban marathons in the wake of the bombings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
How many people died nationwide in alcohol related incidents, violent or otherwise, on the same day? Not that anyone who is arguing against marijuana is doing so honestly anyway, it's only the evilest, most dishonest of motherfuckers doing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Not to mention daily firearm accidents that are so common they don't get news coverage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178175575/shots-fired-at-colorado-pot-gathering There was a shooting at folklife a few years back which is less weed more just old hippys in Seattle. Shootings at crowded venues really is sadly the norm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:There was a shooting at folklife a few years back which is less weed more just old hippys in Seattle. Shootings at crowded venues really is sadly the norm. SHooting at a concert? The artist inspires violence. Shooting at a pot rally? Weed causes violence!! Shooting at a shopping mall? Shopping malls attract 'rampaging urban youths' and foster violence. Shooting of a politician in broad daylight? They earned it by defying their constituency!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
*cough cough*
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Those are just accidents by good hardworking americans and you're an rear end in a top hat for insinuating anything different!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This is changing, albeit slowly. The Seattle police relaxed their drug testing policy in regards to marijuana after the vote, that's huge. And within months of the vote, the inbox of state police union reps was already flooded with requests to push for giving troopers permission to smoke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
What do people think about the States Rights approach to Marijuana Legalization? i.e. exactly what is happening now. Various states are taking the position that they will defy the federal government and of course many people agree with them, but it seems hypocritical to take this position if you denigrate the States Rights argument in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What do people think about the States Rights approach to Marijuana Legalization? i.e. exactly what is happening now. Various states are taking the position that they will defy the federal government and of course many people agree with them, but it seems hypocritical to take this position if you denigrate the States Rights argument in general. It's a gamble - Marijuana advocates are hoping that the feds will ignore them. One of thing that's frequently forgotten is there isn't anything against local law enforcement enforcing federal law - look what happen Medical Marijuana in Michigan. What needs to happen is the government needs to re-schedule Marijuana but who knows how that'll happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What do people think about the States Rights approach to Marijuana Legalization? i.e. exactly what is happening now. Various states are taking the position that they will defy the federal government and of course many people agree with them, but it seems hypocritical to take this position if you denigrate the States Rights argument in general. That being said, I have no problem using the States' Rights approach when it comes to marijuana legalization, because while I think it's something that was settled during the Civil War, most of the people against legalization disagree. So, it's a great way to illustrate their hypocrisy (see also: Antonin Scalia). But yeah, at any moment the feds could crack down on both medical and recreational marijuana use, and legally speaking, they'd be on completely solid ground, even if it would be a really stupid loving policy. The main issue with saying "I believe the states have the right to legislate their own drugs" is that it puts the states in a position to be able to do things like outlaw birth control to appease religious crazies, or legalize mercury in order to bring in corporate money. And gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Well that is kind of the problem isn't it? I fully support marijuana legalization (and honestly the whole war on drugs can gently caress off with it) but if you are concerned that people or states are going to use their rights in the wrong way, you are going to get into an indefensible position. Federal policy doesn't get changed arbitrarily, it takes friction, so if it takes a bunch of teenage mothers dying of back-alley abortions before we get a federal mandate that health-care insurers and providers have to cover abortions, then so be it. It's not going to happen any other way. Same with marijuana. Secretly smoking in your room while talking about how "The Man" doesn't want you to enjoy mother nature isn't going to change poo poo. Taking a hard-line State's Rights approach will. Even New York City's decriminalization edict isn't a good step forward because of the existence of racism and selective enforcement, whereas if the entire State of New York took possession charges off the book, it would be a much bigger deal. It's just a pet-peeve of mine for people to take ideologically inconsistent positions when it fit's their world-view.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:It's a gamble - Marijuana advocates are hoping that the feds will ignore them. One of thing that's frequently forgotten is there isn't anything against local law enforcement enforcing federal law - look what happen Medical Marijuana in Michigan. There's a bill in committee right now to do just that. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr964 Now, whether congress will actuall act on a bill and move it to the floor for a vote is another story altogether.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I'm not convinced anyone in American history has ever held a principled stance on states' rights. Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What needs to happen is the government needs to re-schedule Marijuana but who knows how that'll happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's just a pet-peeve of mine for people to take ideologically inconsistent positions when it fit's their world-view. The ideologically consistent view is to work towards legalization or decriminalization and people are consistent on that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What do people think about the States Rights approach to Marijuana Legalization? i.e. exactly what is happening now. Various states are taking the position that they will defy the federal government and of course many people agree with them, but it seems hypocritical to take this position if you denigrate the States Rights argument in general. It's only hypocritical if you believe that you must create monolithic laws and rules that cannot be defied regardless of context. Sometimes there is a clearly correct and moral way to act that violates the letter of the law and that's okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
It's one thing for a state to allow something that is Federally prohibited- it is another for a state to restrict something that is allowed elsewhere. A restriction is easier to challenge/take to the Supreme Court. There are other conflicts like this as well. New Jersey wants to open up online/sports betting (that sweet, sweet gambling revenue) but needs to deal with federal restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:It's only hypocritical if you believe that you must create monolithic laws and rules that cannot be defied regardless of context. Sometimes there is a clearly correct and moral way to act that violates the letter of the law and that's okay. Don't respond in this thread (in order to prevent too much of a derail), but for morally ambiguous things like Gun Rights, Abortion, Gambling, Labor, Prisons, and I'm sure a host of others, States Rights can be used in either positive or negative ways. Not everything is as cut and dry Morally as slavery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Don't respond in this thread (in order to prevent too much of a derail), but for morally ambiguous things like Gun Rights, Abortion, Gambling, Labor, Prisons, and I'm sure a host of others, States Rights can be used in either positive or negative ways. Not everything is as cut and dry Morally as slavery. It shouldn't surprise you that a cannabis activist would feel that cannabis activism is wholly moral. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a gun rights activist felt that gun ownership was wholly moral. My point is that its silly to ask a cannabis activist "But what if someone else uses your logic for some other issue?!" The answer to that question is obviously that we would need to consider the new argument on its merits. Having a nuanced view doesn't make a person a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
I guarantee you nobody in this thread cares about states' rights in the abstract, they care about marijuana legalization and if a states' rights approach is the best way to make that happen then so be it. If I wanted to discuss my feelings on states' rights as they apply to other topics I'd do it in another thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:I guarantee you nobody in this thread cares about states' rights in the abstract, they care about marijuana legalization and if a states' rights approach is the best way to make that happen then so be it. Said every ideologue about every issue, ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Said every ideologue about every issue, ever. Pretty much this. Everyone is for State's Rights as the solution when their state is being rad and legalizing weed and letting people get married, but that tune changes real quick when that state wants to change something they like, or when some other state is using those same rights to be uncool. I am nowhere near as pro-drug as most of the people frequenting this thread, but regardless of the ultimate outcome change needs to happen at the Federal level because relying on states to do anything more complicated than convening their own legislatures (and sometimes not even that) has never been a good long term solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I am nowhere near as pro-drug as most of the people frequenting this thread, but regardless of the ultimate outcome change needs to happen at the Federal level because relying on states to do anything more complicated than convening their own legislatures (and sometimes not even that) has never been a good long term solution. While true, states indirectly dragging the feds into doing things has been effective long term. It's how the ball really got rolling in the environmental context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Pretty much this. Everyone is for State's Rights as the solution when their state is being rad and legalizing weed and letting people get married, but that tune changes real quick when that state wants to change something they like, or when some other state is using those same rights to be uncool. Pretty much everyone is okay with baseball bats when they're used for baseball games but their tunes change with a quickness when you start talking about using them as assault weapons. Almost as if tools have multiple uses and you can be okay with the ones that fall within your personal moral code and not okay with the ones that fall outside of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I'm all for free speech until someone says something I disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
States already have the right to do some stuff but not other stuff. Anyone who isn't a hardcore secessionist believes in limiting state's rights to a certain degree, and anyone who doesn't want to eliminate the very concept of states believes in allowing state's rights to a certain degree. This argument is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:States already have the right to do some stuff but not other stuff. Anyone who isn't a hardcore secessionist believes in limiting state's rights to a certain degree, and anyone who doesn't want to eliminate the very concept of states believes in allowing state's rights to a certain degree. This argument is dumb. Honestly the whole debate is about the idea of federalism versus political self determinism. If a sufficient number of people in an area vehemently disagree with their political leadership to the point where they no longer feel the system is representative, should they be forever bound by lines drawn on a map two and a half centuries ago? How does this idea square with the Declaration of Independence, or indeed the creation of modern states at all? And on the other side how can that be squared away with the needs of a modern society to protect the disadvantaged (even if it's unpopular) and find compromise positions even if they make everyone unhappy, and avoid having every issue split the country? It's kind of an interesting question to me because I feel that as a leftist there's an enormous gulf in basic political philosophy between the heartland and the coasts. There is a fundamental conflict between religious and secular governance, and between individualism/libertarianism and socialism/collective action that divided the two. I don't know that they should really be bound by my desires if they really want to have Jesusland (just like Israel exists as an explicitly religious state and many Muslim states are quasi- (if not openly) religious states) just because someone drew a line before any of us were born, and I certainly don't feel like I should be bound by their silly book either. At what point do you just let two political cultures go their opposite ways? Or does it necessarily have to get to the point where one group is massacring or genociding the other? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Honestly the whole debate is about the idea of federalism versus political self determinism. If a sufficient number of people in an area vehemently disagree with their political leadership to the point where they no longer feel the system is representative, should they be forever bound by lines drawn on a map two and a half centuries ago? How does this idea square with the Declaration of Independence, or indeed the creation of modern states at all? And on the other side how can that be squared away with the needs of a modern society to protect the disadvantaged (even if it's unpopular) and find compromise positions even if they make everyone unhappy, and avoid having every issue split the country? That's why the Colorado thing is dramatic - it is a referendum-backed amendment to the Constitution; but so is Prop 8 and the Supreme Court is debating it, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
I think the states rights argument is missing the point. It draws a line in the sand - either the feds go along, or the feds curbstomp it, but now it needs to be addressed*. Something like AL challenging the VRA ends up in the supreme court and the law gets challenged. I personally think it should stay, but I know for a fact if someone wasn't challenging it, it would definitely stay. It will be interesting to see how this goes, but defying federal power is how you get those powers re-examined. I really don't think WA/CA/etc will be able to legalize anything longterm without the situation being addressed federally. States rights only extends as far as the state can afford to tell the federal government to shove it and take their money elsewhere, and I don't think any state can afford to do that right now. *Keep in mind that I don't really have the belief that our current crop of government officials (legislative branch specifically) have the ability to actually do anything of merit because inaction is much harder to criticize than action and they are mostly cowards as far as I can tell. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
There's even smaller denomination than states as well. In Santa Cruz, marijuana offenses are the ABSOLUTELY lowest priority for law enforcement. That was signed into law by the city council. But more importantly there are radical social shifts. People who live here just don't care at all. It has such tacit acceptance that as long as you are an adult walking around puffing on a joint will attract no attention whatsoever. Every year we have a huge 420 smokeout at UCSC; the cops don't even bother trying to stop it and no one else cares that they don't. I feel like these type of changes are destined to expand and snowball. Even though marijuana is illegal, you would NEVER know it walking around these parts. And most of California, for that matter. Once more people are exposed to the nonissue that is casual marijuana use, support will grow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
This is a good article:quote:A marijuana update: federal law vs. state power
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Indians smoked pot and look what happened to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
KingEup posted:This is a good article: This also has the interesting side effect of preventing huge corporations from taking over the market because they can't do interstate things. Of course this will just mean that the current producers will become huge corporations when legalized because they have a headstart, but it's good for now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:32
|
|
