|
The Maroon Hawk posted:These opening statements are kind of baffling in their cognitive dissonance. I didn't hear any of them outright say that they think marijuana should stay illegal in as many words. I heard them saying they don't condone the use of marijuana, but believe the federal government should be focusing on the significantly higher danger posed by drugs such as heroin and meth. The rep from Oregon, I believe, specifically pointed out that tobacco use is legal and it's use has fallen over the years as a result of FACT based campaigns against the dangers of using it while marijuana use is slightly up. He also made the wonderful point that one of the likely reasons this has happened is that nobody takes a drug warrior seriously when they try to talk about the dangers of marijuana, even if they have data to back up what they're saying, because they refuse to honestly answer questions like "Is meth more dangerous than marijuana?" without trying to dodge and weave and say poo poo like "Well, with regard to the toxicity of one or the other... I don't like your question. All drugs are bad m'kay? If I tell you meth is worse all the kids will think the risk is lower and go use marijuana." None of them claimed there was NO risk whatsoever from marijuana (although several pointed out that there are no recorded cases of anybody dying of a marijuana overdose), and several of them mentioned that teenagers should not use it at all because of risks it poses to their development. It seems like each and every one of them were couching it in terms of letting states decide marijuana issues for themselves while still trying to develop federal campaigns to reduce overall demand for it along with all other drugs, but that the hard stuff like heroin and meth should be significantly prioritized on the basis that they pose way more danger to users and society in general. The other big vein of the discussion was with regard to the racial disparity in arrests and sentencing. The Democratic reps seemed to be pushing the idea of letting states decide for themselves and focusing the federal government on the harder stuff in order to give Republicans a reason to get on board. It will be interesting to see how the Republican party goes on this particular issue because we all know that a good chunk of them from the South probably see the racial disparity in sentencing as a feature, not a bug.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
I hear this whole "we'd be sending the wrong message" argument trotted out and beaten like a dead horse, but I'm still not entirely sure what that message is supposed to be, since nobody ever seems to elaborate on it. Furthermore, every single person I've heard this from draws an absolute blank when asked if they have a better idea, even though they usually agree that the status quo is unacceptable. Also, I'm convinced at this point that "hard-working Americans" has become the Wilhelm Scream of political rhetoric. snorch fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
"Stop listening to the parents and start listening to the scientists." I love it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:"Stop listening to the parents and start listening to the scientists." I'm really glad someone jumped on him for that "I just spoke with parents" bullshit because 1) I believe stand-up comedians' anecdotes more than I believe politicians' anecdotes and 2) watching him lump prescription pills in with marijuana is infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
This might be in the longer video, but here's a clip with Rep. Steve Cohen D-TN ripping into the ONDCP Deputy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:This might be in the longer video, but here's a clip with Rep. Steve Cohen D-TN ripping into the ONDCP Deputy. Yeah, that is the longer one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
After seeing these videos, I think the topic title is still pretty great. We're still seeing what happens after legalization. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Little segment on edibles and food safety rules from NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/02/268381983/marijuana-laced-treats-leave-colorado-jonesing-for-food-safety-rules
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Look at this disgusting drug war sympathiser:quote:Wicomico County Sheriff Michael Lewis, a former state trooper who worked with Franklin, said although Franklin is widely respected and ran drug task forces, he was primarily in management and hasn’t had the frontline experience to declare the war on drugs a failure. So because officers have died in the past while fighting the war on drugs, we can’t end the war? Who declared war in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
snorch posted:I hear this whole "we'd be sending the wrong message" argument trotted out and beaten like a dead horse, but I'm still not entirely sure what that message is supposed to be, since nobody ever seems to elaborate on it. This is how tobacco is packaged in Australia (accurately reflecting the risks of using it): You wouldn't be able to send this message if tobacco was prohibited. Prohibition sends NO MESSAGE AT ALL. Legalisation allows us to send the RIGHT message. KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Prohibition sends the message that meth and marijuana are equally dangerous, which after you translate it from government to actual person language means "don't listen to anything the government says about drugs, ever. and hey they probably lie to you about a whole bunch of other stuff too and in fact are quite a bunch of assholes in general".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
 [BRAND] [Variant]
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
snorch posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
private message posted:There are some good moments starting at 1:28:00. The ONDCP rep won't admit that marijuana isn't as bad as meth. That was pretty amazing. I bet that fucker went home and had a beer that day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/431394510623744000 Standing room only at SAM rally against marijuana legalization , Gaylord MD I don't get the average citizen's opposition to this. I can understand opposition to gay marriage - it's in the Bible or whatever. But what compels you to take time out of your life to go out and rally against marijuana? What ideological background does that require? 100% white, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/431394510623744000 The interesting thing about that audience isn't just that it looks 100% white, but that it also looks about 95% female. My guess is that it's mostly over-protective mothers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Religious conservatives really hate the idea of people getting high, although of course they usually exempt alcohol from their outrage. Also I have to think that a lot of these people tried pot once in college and got super high and now assume that every single time someone smokes they are always like that. There seems to be this odd perception among all of the boomers I see in real life and on TV talking about pot that one hit turns you into a drooling invalid for hours, incapable of any productive activity or even leaving the couch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Religious conservatives really hate the idea of people getting high, although of course they usually exempt alcohol from their outrage. Most of the dry counties in the US are in heavily religious areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My guess is that it's mostly over-protective mothers. Probably. Women tend to be more liberal than men on almost every issue except curiously marijuana legalization, so I'm going with protective mothers.a recent Pew poll showed a 9 point difference between men and women) Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The interesting thing about that audience isn't just that it looks 100% white, but that it also looks about 95% female.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is the same demographic that agitated for alcohol prohibition the most heavily, so it's unsurprising. Though it was suffragette/temperance league women who helped begin prohibition, it was helped towards its end by the WONPR (Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform), led by Pauline Sabin. She was a very influential Northeastern hostess who had observed first hand how prohibition turned people into scofflaws and empowered criminals with vast sums of cash. The existence and effective leadership of the WONPR turned the tide of the anti-prohibition campaign, as women no longer felt they HAD to support the temperance league or they'd be betraying the right of women's voting and political involvement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Sabin
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
It's also not fair to lump it in with "protective mother" motivations, since alcohol abuse and domestic violence were and in many ways still are tightly linked together. And man did 1800s men drink a loving lot. I think it was something like a bottle of whiskey every few days? Ken Burns' Prohibition series is pretty good, and highlights some of the very real alcoholism issues that the US had at the time the Temperance movement began. edit: It's on Netflix, if you have it. I think it's a pretty good argument for legalizing marijuana, even if it isn't about that in any way, since alcohol was way way more socially destructive and prevalent, and prohibition was still worse than the thing it was trying to solve. TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Feb 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
TGLT posted:It's also not fair to lump it in with "protective mother" motivations, since alcohol abuse and domestic violence were and in many ways still are tightly linked together. And man did 1800s men drink a loving lot. I think it was something like a bottle of whiskey every few days? Ken Burns' Prohibition series is pretty good, and highlights some of the very real alcoholism issues that the US had at the time the Temperance movement began. Yeah, the reason the temperance movement was largely a women's movement was because it was in many ways a proxy battle against domestic abuse in a society that couldn't even begin to talk about domestic abuse but had an existing language (sin, redemption, devil drink) that let them talk about the evils of alcohol. That rationale doesn't seem to be present for the anti-marijuana movement though. I confess I don't really understand why that room is so uniformly female. I hate to be all "vagina havers are inherently protective" or whatever but I'm at a loss for other explanations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That rationale doesn't seem to be present for the anti-marijuana movement though. I confess I don't really understand why that room is so uniformly female. I hate to be all "vagina havers are inherently protective" or whatever but I'm at a loss for other explanations. All of the arguments that the WONPR used also apply to ending prohibition of other drugs, but I'd suggest that there is something about the demographic in that room that means that their children are far less likely to get stopped, searched, or run through the school-to-prison pipeline. If there is going to be a WONPR for drugs, it is probably going to involve a lot of listening to and talking with women of color.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Forgive me if this article was already posted but I thought it was a good review of the political arguments, and existing political climate in Colorado, that lead to passage of the law.quote:“Marijuana has been illegal because of the perception of harm surrounding it — that’s how they made it illegal, that’s how it is illegal currently,” Tvert tells me in the shop’s bustling lobby. “Our opponents’ goal has been to maintain a perception of harm. So our idea has been to get people to understand that marijuana is not as harmful as they’ve been led to believe, and not as harmful as a product like alcohol that is already legal.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
That was a good article. It didn't even have a terrible pun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I think a major issue right now is getting the banks to accept pot shop's money. Saw a news story on NBC yesterday on how shops are getting robbed quite regularly because of all the cash they have to hold on to throughout the day. I can just imagine that if it keeps up, the news will spin it to say how even legalized weed is still drawing a lot of crime. Of course any business that keeps large amounts of cash on hand will be a target of criminals, regardless of the type of store. With that said, glad to see Colorado hasn't fallen into a sea of degenerate hell for legalizing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Stupidog posted:I think a major issue right now is getting the banks to accept pot shop's money. Saw a news story on NBC yesterday on how shops are getting robbed quite regularly because of all the cash they have to hold on to throughout the day. I can just imagine that if it keeps up, the news will spin it to say how even legalized weed is still drawing a lot of crime. Of course any business that keeps large amounts of cash on hand will be a target of criminals, regardless of the type of store. If that keeps up, why not create your own bank outside of federal purview? There is no requirement that all banking establishments have to be part of the national banking system (I'd even argue that there are a lot of advantages to NOT being part of it) but obviously to keep from running afoul of federal law, you'd restrict the accounts to residents of Colorado only. And of course it wouldn't be able to participate in most of the modern niceties of the banking system, but surely there are (quasi-legal) things you could do with that amount of (quasi-legal) cash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
But without access to credit/debit card processing what's the point? They are still going to have their daily takings on hand. I assume that they don't keep the monthly takings on hand at the shop front!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If that keeps up, why not create your own bank outside of federal purview? There is no requirement that all banking establishments have to be part of the national banking system (I'd even argue that there are a lot of advantages to NOT being part of it) but obviously to keep from running afoul of federal law You cannot get any banking done in this country without cooperation from multiple federal and state agencies. There was a group of well financed investors that tried to establish a credit union here in Colorado three or four years ago to cater to medical marijuana businesses and they were threatened with perpetual litigation (from the DOJ) and the lack of cooperation they'd need to be legal (from the FTC and other agencies), and that shut the whole thing down. There was a great long form article about this in Westword back then, but I can't find it on a quick search. Anyway this is old news now as it appears this is being reformed and banks will be allowed to cater to marijuana business this year or the next. Pryor on Fire fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
norp posted:I assume that they don't keep the monthly takings on hand at the shop front! Most of them don't, but you'd be surprised. I know a guy who does a (legal) grow operation in a warehouse, and he has something near a million dollars worth of plants in there and some tens of thousands of cash in a safe on site. His solution to this situation is that he sleeps there in the warehouse and owns lots of guns, one of which he is always carrying all the time every day. This isn't really an isolated case either, there are lots of people sitting on large amounts of marijuana and/or cash right now and protecting it in various ways and the whole thing is sketchy as gently caress. Obviously this is not ideal, so hopefully the banking situation gets sorted out soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure what the specifics on it are, but for the record, I used a debit card at the only dispensary open in Greeley.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:I'm not entirely sure what the specifics on it are, but for the record, I used a debit card at the only dispensary open in Greeley. They are probably doing what a lot of other "high risk" businesses such as escort agencies do. Sign up with a processor based out of somewhere like the Caymans and pay a huge markup compared to what a more vanilla retailer would pay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
I'm guessing it would classify as laundering if they funneled their money through separate businesses who take the cash for bogus "service" and "consulting" fees a la Hollywood Accounting to make it technically no longer weed money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
snorch posted:I'm guessing it would classify as laundering if they funneled their money through separate businesses who take the cash for bogus "service" and "consulting" fees a la Hollywood Accounting to make it technically no longer weed money? It doesn't really matter how they handle the money, using (hell, even possessing) proceeds from marijuana sales is a very serious federal offense if anyone cares to press the issue. There might be some additional charges to throw on there by processing surreptitiously it overseas, but everyone in the business has easily committed federal crimes that could get them multiple life sentences with or without that so it's kind of a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
snorch posted:I'm guessing it would classify as laundering if they funneled their money through separate businesses who take the cash for bogus "service" and "consulting" fees a la Hollywood Accounting to make it technically no longer weed money? That is the definition of money laundering, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
norp posted:But without access to credit/debit card processing what's the point? They are still going to have their daily takings on hand. My local dispensary allows debit processing by acting as an ATM. They change an extra $2 and round the purchases up. The downside is they still need to keep change on hand but it's better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Stupidog posted:I think a major issue right now is getting the banks to accept pot shop's money. Saw a news story on NBC yesterday on how shops are getting robbed quite regularly because of all the cash they have to hold on to throughout the day. I can just imagine that if it keeps up, the news will spin it to say how even legalized weed is still drawing a lot of crime. Of course any business that keeps large amounts of cash on hand will be a target of criminals, regardless of the type of store. The answer is clearly BitCoins
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:They are probably doing what a lot of other "high risk" businesses such as escort agencies do. Sign up with a processor based out of somewhere like the Caymans and pay a huge markup compared to what a more vanilla retailer would pay. I haven't heard follow-up on it, but Last month, Holder stated that they are developing a regulatory framework to allow banks to work with dispensaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Yes some dispensaries are taking credit cards and most will take debit cards. I was watching another news story on youtube and one shop owner says they use credit card processing companies without telling them exactly what they sell and whenever the company finds out they're selling weed, they drop them and the shop has to get a new company. He said he's been through about 5 so far lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 16:05
|
|