Drug legalization thread

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

«‹›266 »

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Dusseldorf posted:

Colorado is a swing state that's been trending blue and Washington is a light blue state.

For perspective, Obama won Colorado in 2012, but more people voted for weed than voted for Obama.

# ? Sep 1, 2013 05:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 23:36

Lacrosse: Jun 16, 2010; >:V

Dusseldorf posted:

Colorado is a swing state that's been trending blue and Washington is a light blue state.

Everything east of the Cascades is red. It's just that's the less-populated side of the state so that's why WA is only barely a blue state.

edit:

Amused to Death posted:

For perspective, Obama won Colorado in 2012, but more people voted for weed than voted for Obama.

If I remember correctly, the same was true of WA. Several red counties voted to legalize weed. There was a handy map I saw demonstrating this shortly after the election but I can't seem to find it.

Lacrosse fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Sep 1, 2013

# ? Sep 1, 2013 05:46

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Eh I wouldn't call that barely blue, it's only 1 point behind Illinois's results in 2012. US presidential results don't swing enough normally and the population is too polarized for a result like that to be not considered safe blue at this point. I mean when 2016 comes around Washington is not getting a visit from either big party candidate because we all know what color the state is going to be come election night.

# ? Sep 1, 2013 05:50

The Maroon Hawk: May 10, 2008

Yeah, I know several people here in CO that voted for Romney, and for Amendment 64. Most of them don't smoke (at least not anymore) but knew plenty of people who do, and saw no reason to vote No on it.

# ? Sep 1, 2013 05:51

Xelkelvos: Dec 19, 2012

So I don't know if this was brought up in the thread or not, but I just wanted to share this as it seems relevant to the thread. Apparently all of the major pro-weed blogs are in a tizzy about a government sponsored study concerning domestic violence and marijuana use.

Here's one for reference:

quote:

The National Institute on Drug Abuse is funding a nearly $2 million study in an attempt to find a link between cannabis consumption, and domestic violence: We have littlecannabis doubt that it�s going to backfire, and conclude that cannabis reduces violence among partners.
For the study, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is granting the University of Buffalo $1.86 million to conduct 4 years of research; the study will be titled Proximal Effects of Marijuana in Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.
According to a university press release; �[Maria Testa, Ph.D, lead researcher for the study] says that despite the commonly held belief that marijuana suppresses aggression, many studies have found a positive association between marijuana use and intimate-partner violence.�
This statement has no legitimate science to back it up; in fact, a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology has found that cannabis reduces aggression (as well as improves social interactions).
All-in-all, this study � at least to us � is an indication of how desperate prohibitionists are becoming, as they attempt to find any negative effect that cannabis might have, in order to use when debating against legalization.
We hate to say it NIDA (actually, that�s a lie, we enjoy saying it), but you�re never going to be able to legitimately use the argument that cannabis causes domestic violence.
- TheJointBlog

Obviously these blogs aren't the most reputable of news sources, but then there's quite a few stoners who have anti-government biases and know nothing about science (as does the typical layperson) and they eat poo poo like this up. :pseudo:

Just for reference, however, here's the blurb from the University of Buffalo's Research Institute on Addictions's page of research projects:

quote:

Proximal Effects of Marijuana in Understanding Intimate Partner Violence
Although marijuana is commonly believed to suppress aggression, surveys consistently reveal positive associations between marijuana use and perpetration of intimate partner violence. However, it is not known whether on a proximal, event level marijuana use results in affective, cognitive, or behavioral effects consistent with partner aggression. The current study addresses this gap with a 30 day, experiential momentary assessment (EMA) study of marijuana use and couple functioning in a sample of young couples in which one or both partners use marijuana. Couples will be followed for one year, to determine whether marijuana use or its immediate consequence influence relationship functioning and stability over time. Dr.Testa's co-investigators include Drs. Jaye Derrick, Kenneth Leonard of RIA, and Lorraine Collins of the School of Public Health and Health Professions. Funded by a grant of $1,862,243 from NIDA, 2013-2017.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 00:12

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

I have never smoked up and thought beating my girlfriend felt like a good idea. I strongly believe there's no correlation between the two. Alcohol is a thousand times more likely to cause domestic violence. Most drugs under the sun are practically a fast track to that unfortunate decision before weed.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 06:21

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 19 hours!

Pyroxene Stigma posted:

I have never smoked up and thought beating my girlfriend felt like a good idea. I strongly believe there's no correlation between the two. Alcohol is a thousand times more likely to cause domestic violence. Most drugs under the sun are practically a fast track to that unfortunate decision before weed.

As the study says, the correlation is already there. Marijuana use is negatively correlated with income, which itself is very strongly negatively correlated with domestic abuse. This study is going to go into greater depth and try to work out any sort of causal relationship. The answer may very well be that there is not. Note that they are going beyond "smoked up and beat my girlfriend", but also looking at general negative relationship effects caused by marijuana that lead to abuse. For example, if someone loses/can't get a job because he can't pass a piss test, and the resulting domestic turbulence culminates in abuse, that may be an example of marijuana use (or more accurately, the social and legal structures surrounding marijuana use, but you can't really extricate the two in the real world) leading to domestic violence.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 12:27

TVs Patrick Duffy: Dec 12, 2006; Pick something difficult. You know, hard to mock or whatever.

Just got this in the old inbox. Kinda weird seeing marijuana related information coming from the White House.

white house petition site posted:

Wed., September 4, 2013

Note: You're receiving this update because you've previously signed a We the People petition on the issue of marijuana.

Last week, the Department of Justice released their guidance in light of ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington -- we thought you'd want to see the news:

Justice Department Announces Update to Marijuana Enforcement Policy

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an update to its federal marijuana enforcement policy in light of recent state ballot initiatives that legalize, under state law, the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and sale.

In a new memorandum outlining the policy, the Department makes clear that marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act and that federal prosecutors will continue to aggressively enforce this statute. To this end, the Department identifies eight (8) enforcement areas that federal prosecutors should prioritize. These are the same enforcement priorities that have traditionally driven the Department�s efforts in this area.

Outside of these enforcement priorities, however, the federal government has traditionally relied on state and local authorizes to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. This guidance continues that policy.

For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department�s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize -- either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one -- federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states.

Tell us what you think about this update.

Stay Connected

Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr Google+

This email was sent to
Sign Up for Updates from the White House
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House � 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW � Washington, DC 20500 � 202-456-1111

# ? Sep 4, 2013 21:44

Lacrosse: Jun 16, 2010; >:V

Today WA announced that the max amount of 'Pot Shops' is set to 334, 21 of which will be located in Seattle.

Associated Press posted:

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - There would be a maximum of 334 locations that sell recreational marijuana in Washington under rules proposed Wednesday by the state Liquor Control Board.

The board also set a production cap of 40 metric tons of marijuana per year, and limited the number of licenses individual entities could hold.

The Liquor Control Board has a new timeline for implementation:

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer posted:

The board�s new timeline:

Oct. 9 � Public hearing on proposed rules
Oct. 16 � Board adopts proposed rules (CR 103)
Nov. 16 � Rules become effective
Nov. 18 � WSLCB begins accepting applications for all license types
Dec. 1 � Rules are complete (as mandated by law). Begin issuing producer, processor and retail licenses to qualified applicants.

Legal sales to adults could be a bit sooner than early summer 2014 like people had been predicting. Things seem to be moving a lot quicker now.

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:15

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

That's only a little over an eighth per person per year so I hope a lot of people abstain. Anyone have any clue of the yearly alcohol consumption in Washington that it could be compared to?

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:21

gohuskies: Oct 23, 2010; I spend a lot of time making posts to justify why I'm not a self centered shithead that just wants to act like COVID isn't a thing.

Jeffrey posted:

That's only a little over an eighth per person per year so I hope a lot of people abstain. Anyone have any clue of the yearly alcohol consumption in Washington that it could be compared to?

The liquor control board expects to only capture 25 percent of the total marijuana market in the first year, with the rest being fulfilled by medical and illicit. It's just a bridge too far to get it all in the first year. The board is currently envisioning recreational stores opening June 1, not clear if that includes medical dispensaries switching to recreational. Also it's apparently actually more like 7.5 grams per adult per year, so it won't be quite so bad as all that.

gohuskies fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Sep 4, 2013

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:24

The MUMPSorceress: Jan 6, 2012; ^SHTPSTS; Gary’s Answer

TVs Patrick Duffy posted:

Just got this in the old inbox. Kinda weird seeing marijuana related information coming from the White House.

What are those 8 criteria, exactly?

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:25

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

What are those 8 criteria, exactly?

From a page or two ago:

quote:

The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:

the distribution of marijuana to minors;
revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:27

VendaGoat: Nov 1, 2005

Jeffrey posted:

That's only a little over an eighth per person per year so I hope a lot of people abstain. Anyone have any clue of the yearly alcohol consumption in Washington that it could be compared to?

Baby Steps dude. I'm not trying to be condescending here, please just take it for what it is.

Lasting change has to come slowly, with trepidation and critical thinking. If change comes too quickly or worse, is forced, it will revert.

With that out of the way.

I guarantee you this is the equivalent of the Washington lawmakers saying; "Ok, you kids want this, let's see if you're mature enough to handle it."

Edit: VVV Got it, sorry for the misunderstanding.

VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 4, 2013

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:28

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

LeftistMuslimObama posted:

What are those 8 criteria, exactly?

The memorandum was linked earlier in this thread:
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

EDIT: ^^^ I know, I'm just curious to compare it to alcohol, and what the ramifications will be. I wonder if the stores will rate-limit their sales or, if not, what happens if they run out 8 months into the year? Medical not counting against it is a good point and I imagine doctors will only be more lenient giving out the doctor's recs.

What is the timeframe for Colorado? Are we just waiting for year's end?

Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Sep 4, 2013

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:29

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.

DOJ posted:

A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice.

�Effective in practice�??? Compared to what � the DOJ�s prohibition approach? Don�t make me laugh!

KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Sep 4, 2013

# ? Sep 4, 2013 22:30

Spoondick: Jun 9, 2000

Just saw this in my local paper:

quote:

Surprise: Colorado's legal weed doesn't stay in Colorado

By John Ingold, The Denver Post
Posted: 09/04/2013 12:05:07 PM PDT

Marijuana is flowing into the black market and out of Colorado in greater quantities than ever before, law enforcement officials say.

It's going by car and by bus. It's being packed up and shipped through the mail. It's being found, in small amounts and large bundles, as far away as Illinois, New York and Florida.

Earlier this year, 42 pounds of high-grade, vacuum-sealed marijuana was flown into Atchison, Kan., in a small red-and-white airplane. Acting on a tip, a team of law enforcement officers pounced on the plane immediately after it landed, seized the marijuana and put four Colorado residents in handcuffs.

"I think they thought they were going to sneak in," Atchison's police chief, Mike Wilson, said recently.

The movement of Colorado marijuana into neighboring states has scarcely escaped the attention of police in those states, who say they have started tracking it more closely and believe Colorado's legalization of pot will only increase the influx.

"It's already got a reputation in Oklahoma because of how strong it is," Mark Woodward, the spokesman for Oklahoma's Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, said of Colorado marijuana. "No question, the more access you have, the more demand you're going to have for this."

To be sure, cross-border marijuana trafficking has long occurred, and marijuana grown in Colorado for out-of-state distribution remains illegal under state law. Mason Tvert, one of the advocates behind marijuana legalization in Colorado, said the state's new laws will cut down on black-market demand within the state, allowing officials to focus on the out-of-state traffickers.

"It's still illegal," Tvert said. "Our government should be focusing its time on preventing illegal cultivation and sales."

It is also uncertain exactly how much pot is leaving the state's borders � or how much the activity has increased.

Seizure numbers are an imprecise measurement of activity, in part because law enforcement agencies and drug traffickers constantly change tactics in their cat-and-mouse game. Reporting seizure numbers to the Drug Enforcement Agency is voluntary. And investigators rely many times on interviews with suspects � who may be unreliable � in determining that the marijuana originated in Colorado.

"Right now, I don't think anyone knows how much marijuana is leaving Colorado," said Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor who has studied marijuana policy issues.

Still, Colorado pot is clearly moving into neighboring states.

The DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center reported that, for 2012, 3� tons of Colorado marijuana that was destined for other states was seized by law enforcement agencies across the country. That's up more than 300 percent from 2009, when a little over three-quarters of a ton of Colorado marijuana was seized.

Likewise, U.S. postal inspectors have seen a jump in seizures of packages containing marijuana mailed in Colorado to other states � from 15 in 2010 to 209 through the first five months of 2013.

"We're seeing a substantial increase in domestic cannabis that originates in the Denver area over the last three or four years," said Kansas Highway Patrol Lt. B.K. Smith.

That's a problem for Colorado officials, and not just because it makes the neighbors angry.

In a memo released last week, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would allow marijuana legalization, including recreational marijuana stores, to go forward without federal interference. If Colorado fails to keep its marijuana within its borders, the Justice Department memo said federal prosecutors may decide to intervene.

But regulators and law enforcement officials in the state say stopping diversion will be difficult. Even with tightly regulated marijuana stores, there are simply too many ways for pot to flow into the black market and out of Colorado for officials to be able to halt the current flow entirely.

The incentives to illegal growers are clear: Marijuana that sells in the black market in Colorado for as little as $2,000 a pound can go for $4,000 a pound just across state lines and perhaps $6,000 a pound on the East Coast, said Denver police Sgt. Andrew Howard.

"It's simple market forces," said Howard, who is on the department's marijuana task force. "People (here) think it's legal. People think the cops don't care about it being unregulated, so let's take advantage of the system."

Diversion from marijuana stores has received the most attention from regulators, but that is perhaps the least likely source, experts say. Licenses for legal pot shops will be expensive and hard to get.

"I would be very surprised if people growing legally under a state system are also growing illegally for export," said Mark Kleiman, a professor at UCLA who was helped Washington state write its rules for recreational marijuana stores. "Those licenses are valuable."

There are still plenty of ways, though, for pot in Colorado to move across state lines. Medical marijuana patients, caregivers or people growing at home can move small amounts. Shoppers can buy up marijuana bit by bit at stores and then resell the whole sum in another state. And, perhaps most worrying for officials, black marketers can try to hide beneath Colorado's laws to run explicitly illegal operations.

Tom Allman, the sheriff of Mendocino County in California, long a hotbed of illicit marijuana growing, said Colorado should be prepared. He predicted the state's new marijuana laws would lead to more illegal growers trying their luck in the state.

"I think they just roll their dice," Allman said. "We have been told by growers they are leaving California and they're going to Colorado."

Tvert said it wouldn't make sense for black marketers to move to a state so concerned about marijuana regulation. But it's that possibility that most concerns Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.

With a good enough tracking system, the state may be able to stop marijuana from leaking out of commercial growing operations, Suthers said. Plugging all sources, though, in what could become the nation's cannabis heartland may prove impossible.

"Our legal system gives you a kind of cover," he said. "I think that's going to become the view: As far as marijuana is concerned, this is the Wild West."

The article could've been more aptly titled "Surprise: Weed does not stay where it was grown" considering the huge volume of illegal marijuana that have been distributed and consumed over the last 50 years of prohibition. It's interesting from an economic perspective how legalization will affect prices within Colorado and Washington. The more prices drop due to legalization, the greater the incentive for illegal growers and distributors to export to other markets, especially if they're able to operate with relative impunity. There's not a whole lot that can be done about people purchasing smaller quantities and then shipping or taking it out of state to friends or for resale, not that interdiction efforts have been effective anyways, but I'm sure we're going to see a lot of foot stomping and complaining from law enforcement in other states.

# ? Sep 5, 2013 02:36

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.

Every state that complains about cannabis from Colorado being smuggled into their state is admitting that their own policy of cannabis prohibtion is ineffective.

It is glorious.

# ? Sep 5, 2013 03:42

size1one: Jun 24, 2008; I don't want a nation just for me, I want a nation for everyone

VendaGoat posted:

Baby Steps dude. I'm not trying to be condescending here, please just take it for what it is.

Lasting change has to come slowly, with trepidation and critical thinking. If change comes too quickly or worse, is forced, it will revert.

With that out of the way.

I guarantee you this is the equivalent of the Washington lawmakers saying; "Ok, you kids want this, let's see if you're mature enough to handle it."

Edit: VVV Got it, sorry for the misunderstanding.

This is also untested ground in terms of level of consumption. They're probably erring on the side of having too little than too much. Too much means a higher likelihood businesses will divert it elsewhere rather than lose money. I expect that if demand outpaces the production limits the state will raise the limits. The more stores sell the more tax dollars the state collects.

In other news.. This is a bit premature but at least one member of the Oregon state legislature wants to focus on legalizing weed next term.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/oregon_revenue_chairman_legisl.html

Oregonian posted:

Oregon lawmakers shouldn�t wait for a ballot measure legalizing marijuana, they should write their own, says Rep. Phil Barnhart.

Barnhart, D-Eugene, chairs the House Revenue committee, which would likely be charged with sorting out how the state would tax legal pot.

He told The Oregonian that either lawmakers write a bill in February, or someone else will.

�We have the best shot of actually getting it right as compared to somebody writing an initiative and if we don�t do this it�s very likely that there will be an initiative on the ballot,� Barnhart said.

Supporters of legal pot got a huge political boost during the 2012 election when voters in Washington and Colorado approved legalization initiatives. A similar effort in Oregon failed, supporters have vowed to prepare another ballot measure initiative.

Democratic leaders are still figuring out what their agenda will be for the short February session. Barnhart said he�s lobbying for pot.

Barnhart said marijuana legislation needs to focus on breaking up criminal gangs, regulating and taxing marijuana and keeping it out of the hands of children.

�The war on drugs has been lost and we need to come up with something that works for us,� Barnhart said.

# ? Sep 5, 2013 04:05

LuciferMorningstar: Aug 12, 2012; VIDEO GAME MODIFICATION IS TOTALLY THE SAME THING AS A FEMALE'S BODY AND CLONING SAID MODIFICATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAPE, GUYS!!!!!!!

Rep. Barnhart posted:

�The war on drugs has been lost and we need to come up with something that works for us,� Barnhart said.

As much as it thrills me to hear more people admit that the War on Drugs is either lost or failed, I feel like it's a bad publicity move. Words mean everything and there absolutely has to be a better way to spin it than "Pack it up. We've lost."

# ? Sep 6, 2013 01:22

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

LuciferMorningstar posted:

As much as it thrills me to hear more people admit that the War on Drugs is either lost or failed, I feel like it's a bad publicity move. Words mean everything and there absolutely has to be a better way to spin it than "Pack it up. We've lost."

If you can get enough Americans to believe it, "We've lost" is a good reason to stop for a surprising amount of people. Vietnam was ended in a definitive "we've lost" sort of way.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 14:54

Spoondick: Jun 9, 2000

Speaking of "We Lost" rhetoric:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2013/09/05/king-county-sheriff-to-be-hauled-before-congress-over-marijuana/

quote:

Mr. Urquhart Goes to Washington

Sheriff Urquhart invited to testify before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on state and federal marijuana laws.

SEATTLE, WA � King County Sheriff John Urquhart will appear in Washington, D.C. next week before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing titled �Conflicts between State and Federal Marijuana Laws.� Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) announced the hearing months after Washington and Colorado legalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use, and only days before the Department of Justice revealed that it will not intervene in the states� implementation of their respective laws.

�I supported I-502 last year because as a former narcotics detective, I can say with full confidence that the War on Drugs as been a failure,� said Sheriff John Urquhart. �There has to be a better way. And as far as marijuana is concerned, the citizens of Washington have decided legalization for personal use appears to be that �better way�. Law enforcement needs to respect their decision.�

As Sheriff of King County, Urquhart is the top law enforcement official in the nation�s largest local jurisdiction with legalized recreational marijuana. His testimony will focus on public safety priorities during and after the implementation of I-502. In addition he will speak to issues not addressed by the DOJ decision, such as incongruous banking laws which will make legal marijuana sales a cash-only business.

In addition to Sheriff Urquhart, Deputy Attorney General James Cole from the Department of Justice, and Jack Finlaw, Chief Legal Counsel to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will appear before the committee.

Apparently the Senate Judiciary Committee helped craft the DOJ's stance regarding marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado, so there is some substantial support for legalization within congress.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 15:45

Hugh G. Rectum: Mar 1, 2011

No, this is not an Onion article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-mccain-marijuana-legalization_n_3879907.html

John McCain posted:

Maybe we should legalize. We're certainly moving that way as far as marijuana is concerned. I respect the will of the people

# ? Sep 6, 2013 21:42

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Sudo Echo posted:

No, this is not an Onion article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-mccain-marijuana-legalization_n_3879907.html

In an alternate universe, Senator Obama "evolves" his position on marijuana legalization in the face of President McCain's intransigence on the issue.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 21:50

VendaGoat: Nov 1, 2005

Sudo Echo posted:

No, this is not an Onion article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-mccain-marijuana-legalization_n_3879907.html

I...

Uh....

Am I in some sort of Bizzaro universe? I should be happy, but I'm just wondering what the hell is going on here.

# ? Sep 7, 2013 03:05

Devyl: Mar 27, 2005; It slices!

It dices!

It makes Julienne fries!

VendaGoat posted:

I...

Uh....

Am I in some sort of Bizzaro universe? I should be happy, but I'm just wondering what the hell is going on here.

That's just downright scary. If Rand Paul goes for legalization as well, I'd be in total disbelief.

# ? Sep 7, 2013 04:29

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Devyl posted:

That's just downright scary. If Rand Paul goes for legalization as well, I'd be in total disbelief.

Why would you be surprised that a libertarian would be pro-legalization? I'd poo poo my pants of Ron Paul/Rand Paul didn't favor the government butting out of substance regulation all together.

# ? Sep 7, 2013 04:34

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Rand Paul is mealy-mouthed as gently caress and so far has kept to vague statements like "don't lock em up." He endorses medical marijuana but that's it.

Ron Paul was a plumb-line "don't-give-a-gently caress" libertarian but Rand isn't the type to lead on this.

# ? Sep 7, 2013 04:35

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Got a thing in my email as a result of my brave, well-considered, and vital to the cause click of an electronic petition a while ago.

Barack Obama's Hell-Minions posted:

Justice Department Announces Update to Marijuana Enforcement Policy

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an update to its federal marijuana enforcement policy in light of recent state ballot initiatives that legalize, under state law, the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and sale.

In a new memorandum outlining the policy, the Department makes clear that marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act and that federal prosecutors will continue to aggressively enforce this statute. To this end, the Department identifies eight (8) enforcement areas that federal prosecutors should prioritize. These are the same enforcement priorities that have traditionally driven the Department�s efforts in this area.

Outside of these enforcement priorities, however, the federal government has traditionally relied on state and local authorizes to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. This guidance continues that policy.

For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department�s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize -- either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one -- federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states.

This may be the most encouraging piece of meaningless hogwash I've read all month!

Edit: I see this was covered about four messages up. Oh well.

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Sep 7, 2013

# ? Sep 7, 2013 04:40

Devyl: Mar 27, 2005; It slices!

It dices!

It makes Julienne fries!

Salt Fish posted:

Why would you be surprised that a libertarian would be pro-legalization? I'd poo poo my pants of Ron Paul/Rand Paul didn't favor the government butting out of substance regulation all together.

I'd be surprised because Kentucky, despite growing some of the best outdoor weed this side of the Mississippi, is one of the strictest and most policed states in regards to cannabis.

# ? Sep 7, 2013 07:02

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007

Here's a chilling article highlighting what the Drug War has done to our country. The subject is civil forfeitures.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

Excerpt:

quote:

They pulled into a mini-mart for snacks. When they returned to the highway ten minutes later, Boatright, a honey-blond �Texas redneck from Lubbock,� by her own reckoning, and Henderson, who is Latino, noticed something strange. The same police car that their eleven-year-old had admired in the mini-mart parking lot was trailing them. Near the city limits, a tall, bull-shouldered officer named Barry Washington pulled them over.

He asked if Henderson knew that he�d been driving in the left lane for more than half a mile without passing.

No, Henderson replied. He said he�d moved into the left lane so that the police car could make its way onto the highway.

Were there any drugs in the car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car.

The officers found the couple�s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station. In a corner there, two tables were heaped with jewelry, DVD players, cell phones, and the like. According to the police report, Boatright and Henderson fit the profile of drug couriers: they were driving from Houston, �a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,� to Linden, �a known place to receive illegal narcotics.� The report describes their children as possible decoys, meant to distract police as the couple breezed down the road, smoking marijuana. (None was found in the car, although Washington claimed to have smelled it.)

The county�s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie�s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for �money laundering� and �child endangerment,� in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. �No criminal charges shall be filed,� a waiver she drafted read, �and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,� or Child Protective Services.

�Where are we?� Boatright remembers thinking. �Is this some kind of foreign country, where they�re selling people�s kids off?� Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.

# ? Sep 8, 2013 15:51

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Devyl posted:

I'd be surprised because Kentucky, despite growing some of the best outdoor weed this side of the Mississippi, is one of the strictest and most policed states in regards to cannabis.

McConnell and Paul have been pushing for Hemp related stuff in the senate though. Its in Kentucky's best interest to have something to replace tobacco.

# ? Sep 8, 2013 15:59

InsomnicIneptitude: Jun 25, 2013; TY for no bm

Which states have ballot initiatives for Marijuana that look like they'll actually end up getting the signatures necessary for 2014?

# ? Sep 9, 2013 02:08

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.

This is important and you guys should watch the webcast:

Conflicts between State and Federal Marijuana Laws
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee
View a webcast of this hearing
DATE: September 10, 2013
TIME: 02:30 PM

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=094c28995d1f5bc4fe11d832f90218f9

Featuring none other than drug warrior numero uno a Dr (cough) Kevin Sabet (recently voted America's most vocal drug warrior).

His bio:

quote:

Sabet heads an astroturf organization called Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). He�s an inveterate anti-marijuana bigot and a drug war careerist who is addicted to stigmatizing the plant and those who use it. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/potential-miracle-element-cannabis-changed-sanjay-guptas-mind-about-power-pot

quote:

5 Biggest Lies from Anti-Pot Propagandist Kevin Sabet http://www.alternet.org/drugs/5-biggest-lies-anti-pot-propagandist-kevin-sabet?paging=off

Written by Dr (actual) Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, MD, PhD, Senior Resident Physician, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, New York University.

KingEup fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 12:09

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Jesus Christ, Sabet pulled out the "1 in 6 kids get addicted" lie in front of Congress.

# ? Sep 10, 2013 21:02

Xeom: Mar 16, 2007

Sabet is such a giant piece of poo poo, holy gently caress.

# ? Sep 10, 2013 21:23

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

Is the stream still going? It says it starts at 2:30 but not how long it's supposed to run.

edit: Nevermind. The 'LIVE WEBCAST' is actually a recording of what just happened.

# ? Sep 10, 2013 21:36

Winkle-Daddy: Mar 10, 2007

Sabet should try to prove how harmful marijuana is by being the first person to die from an overdose. Because gently caress that guy. Something about how "more people end up in the emergency room from gummy bear edibles marketed to kids than joints." :psyduck:

# ? Sep 10, 2013 21:39

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Necc0 posted:

Is the stream still going? It says it starts at 2:30 but not how long it's supposed to run.

edit: Nevermind. The 'LIVE WEBCAST' is actually a recording of what just happened.

It finished 20 minutes ago or so. It isn't really worth watching.

Executive summary: The feds are going to work on the banking thing so dispensaries don't have Scrooge McDuck piles of cash lying around. Congress needs to work on poo poo that DoJ doesn't have jurisdiction over but still needs to be fixed so that there's no uncertainty. Who will think of the children? Tincture-infused gummi bears are the devil. Seattle has a cool sheriff (but not too cool for Congress). "Pot tart".

Jazerus fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Sep 11, 2013

# ? Sep 10, 2013 21:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 23:36

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Winkle-Daddy posted:

Sabet should try to prove how harmful marijuana is by being the first person to die from an overdose. Because gently caress that guy. Something about how "more people end up in the emergency room from gummy bear edibles marketed to kids than joints."

Help, my child has eaten too many marijuana gummy bears! What cartoons should he watch?

# ? Sep 11, 2013 01:56

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

«‹›266 »