|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Any so-called patients won't be looking for recommendations once they can go to a store and go home. Legalization legitimizes medical for those who are seeking it as medication. Not if the newly legalized recreational weed is much more expensive and of worse quality. I highly doubt anyone is going to try and produce high CBD-strains without a medical incentive. Washington is doing a great job of ensuring the black market will stay alive and healthy.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
staticman posted:I keep hearing from my friends that the government in WA is pushing towards eliminating medical, in favor of I-502 stores. Is there any truth to this, or is it just stoner The pre-502 MMJ laws are 100% intact. There's some question over whether some of the not-actually-medical "medical" "co-ops" are going to be able to keep their doors open once recreational sales start up, but nobody but the proprietors are going to cry too hard over those. Of course, said proprietors are talking about how this will surely hurt thousands of patients, just you wait (just like they promised that going from the old zero-tolerance DUI law to the 5 ng/ml DUI limit would result in every MMJ patient in the state being arrested for DUI). KingEup posted:No it's true. Mark Kleiman (the consultant for The Liquor Control Board) is openly hostile towards "medical marijuana" and their so called "patients". Citation needed. Statements from Kleiman criticizing the obviously non-medical nature of the current "medical" system for being a lovely, disingenuous system don't count. Also, he's a consultant, not the final authority. As noted previously, the pre-502 MMJ laws are still in place, and again, they're not going anywhere soon (we're a couple days out from sine die, and there's been nothing on recreational weed, not even with the scramble for dedicated tax revenue that every single service provider in the state desperately wants).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:04
|
|
?
|
the black husserl posted:Not if the newly legalized recreational weed is much more expensive and of worse quality. I highly doubt anyone is going to try and produce high CBD-strains without a medical incentive. What's the medical incentive when there's no real testing for "high CBD"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:California Democrats just added legalization to their platform: I doubt they'll push for legalization in the legislature. Gonna have to wait until 2016 for the ballot initiative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
AYC posted:I doubt they'll push for legalization in the legislature. No point in legislating, Gov. Brown is against it and he's a stubborn old goat who'd probably shitcan it even if the Democrats in the legislature decided to actually act on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
cafel posted:No point in legislating, Gov. Brown is against it and he's a stubborn old goat who'd probably shitcan it even if the Democrats in the legislature decided to actually act on it. Moonbeam indeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
AYC posted:I doubt they'll push for legalization in the legislature. Still very significant because as far as I know this is the first time a full-party has endorsed legalization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
So my state has a medical marijuana bill up for consideration. It probably won't pass, the south loves to have its modern day equivalents of the fields with slaves being ordered around. In this case the fields are hospitals and the slaves are the sick and infirm having to imbibe their goddamn pharmaceutical bullshit! http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/is-support-for-medical-marijuana-lighting-a-fire-under-tennessee-lawmakers/Content?oid=4042883 A few wonderful highlights: In Tennessee's legislative chambers, supporters of medical marijuana have to take good news where they can get it. Recently, House Speaker Beth Harwell said that while she understood there might be some medical uses for marijuana, she didn't think Tennessee was ready to move forward with legalization for medical purposes. ___ Senate Speaker Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey — who has said he personally knows a family wanting to treat their child with medical marijuana — questions smoking marijuana for medical purposes, but is open to learning more about other forms of treatment. "It's my understanding that most of this, whatever the ingredient it is, is available in pill form, is available in gel form, and things of that nature," Ramsey says. When asked if he would support the legalization of a pill form, he responded that he didn't know that was illegal now. "If it is, to be honest, I don't know enough about it to even comment," Ramsey says. "But I will say, if it's in pill form or if it's in liquid form and prescribed by a doctor, that's something I'd think, off the top of my head, I wouldn't have a problem with. I don't think. Unless there's something I don't know on the issue." ___ A key feature of HB 1385 is that it does not permit home growing — a measure addressing those who worry that legalizing medical marijuana is a gateway bill to legalizing recreational marijuana. Under its provisions, only licensed, regulated entities could house and grow marijuana plants, which Paul Kuhn says is a key component to passing the bill. "You lose some votes if you offer growing," Kuhn says. "There would be dispensaries throughout the state, and prices would be reasonable, so most people wouldn't want to grow." ___ Last week, Tennessee Medical Association CEO Russ Miller said the group "opposes the use of marijuana for medical or recreational uses. The medicinal benefit does not justify the unintended consequences." ___ SO there you have it. A sea of ignorant fucks who are bought and loving paid for by the very same people that poison our children, our elderly, and everyone else who gets prescribed their garbage. I wonder if Russ Miller, that cumguzzling son of a whore, has compared the "unintended consequences" to the ones involving the millions of opiates his doctor cronies dole out to my fellow Tennesseans every year. And Ramsay, that loving prickbag. Can you say bought and paid for by Big Pharma? It depresses the poo poo out of me because I would sure like for my grandma to be able to feel better for a little while, her back is in terrible shape due to degenerative disc conditions. It is so frustrating seeing the arrogance of these rich monsters and how they can run ripshod over the rights of their electorate with zero consequences! I barely eek out 20K a year and these fuckers are rich on the backs and suffering of people like me while sneering and blatantly lying about this panacea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
cafel posted:No point in legislating, Gov. Brown is against it and he's a stubborn old goat who'd probably shitcan it even if the Democrats in the legislature decided to actually act on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Honestly more curious now about how much money they'll save on prisons. The tax revenue can be quantified but can the judicial costs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Stanos posted:Honestly more curious now about how much money they'll save on prisons. The tax revenue can be quantified but can the judicial costs? You can, but it's a lot less concrete than "we made $X over period Y".
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Easily, how many people are in state prison in Colorado for marijuana possession? Then figure out how long they're there for, how much it costs per year, if the trend in convictions was declining,all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Stanos posted:Honestly more curious now about how much money they'll save on prisons. The tax revenue can be quantified but can the judicial costs? Probably very little, it is a very small percentage of people who are truly in prison for marijuana and nothing else, and people will probably still go for illegal distribution/supply if that exists. Are any parolees forced to abstain?(This is the case for alcohol, right?) I bet a good chunk of them are busted for weed and then imprisoned for parole violation. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Probably very little, it is a very small percentage of people who are truly in prison for marijuana and nothing else, and people will probably still go for illegal distribution/supply if that exists. Well people who are doing actual time for growing plants or carrying a serious amount of weed will probably either not be prosecuted now or get federal charges. I'm not sure how many people this constitutes in Colorado but there is a decent amount of "serious crime" that is marijuana related that Colorado won't care about because it'll either become obsolete or legal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:"It's my understanding that most of this, whatever the ingredient it is, is available in pill form, is available in gel form, and things of that nature," Ramsey says. When asked if he would support the legalization of a pill form, he responded that he didn't know that was illegal now. This explains why the botanical raw material is superior: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/11/health/gupta-marijuana-entourage/index.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Easily, how many people are in state prison in Colorado for marijuana possession? Then figure out how long they're there for, how much it costs per year, if the trend in convictions was declining,all that. It's more than that though. What about lost tax revenue and economic activity from jobs lost, careers derailed, and educations cut short because of marijuana convictions? How about the increased burden on state services, especially Medicaid, from released convicts who are now more likely to fall near or under the poverty line? And what about the knock-on effects on neighborhoods that see large proportions of families and support structures torn apart by drug convictions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair, it wouldn't be perfect, but I do think you could get a useful figure though just by analyzing the number of people in prison that wouldn't be under the new law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
KingEup posted:This explains why the botanical raw material is superior: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/11/health/gupta-marijuana-entourage/index.html It seems like CNN has been posting about an article a week on marijuana since legalization. The majority seem pretty decent and tend to be along the same lines of "maybe it isn't as bad as we've been saying". If nothing else, it's nice to see a major news outlet throwing some facts out there instead of the usual political mouthpiece BS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Dattserberg posted:It seems like CNN has been posting about an article a week on marijuana since legalization. The majority seem pretty decent and tend to be along the same lines of "maybe it isn't as bad as we've been saying". If nothing else, it's nice to see a major news outlet throwing some facts out there instead of the usual political mouthpiece BS. Someone in their marketing department probably finally figured out that well-reasoned pro-legalization articles are major click-bait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Also, I know it's been said already, but we really need a new title or thread. Maybe both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
According to the ONDCP, (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf page 20) only 1.6% of state prisoners are there for only marijuana crimes(others are imprisoned for marijuana + something else - those would presumably still happen). Considering Colorado's lax stance compared to many states, I think it is very likely that Colorado's rate is even lower - after all, mere possession can get one real time in some states. This accounts for 16,000 people across all states. (I'm using wikipedia numbers from 2008 - anyone have better sources?). It is a nice thing but ultimately, I don't think 1% of the prison budget is anything for them to party about - it probably isn't in the top 3 best reasons to legalize. I tried to find a secondary source for the numbers - norml cites ~33,000 state prisoners for marijuana, and I found a blog that cited them as saying that only 50% of those were sentenced for marijuana only, but that claim was nowhere in the linked article, so either the blog lied or the article was edited. Confounders: -This doesn't capture people who were searched with the PC being "I smell marijuana", who were then charged and convicted with something else. The cited document is hard to read, so "marijuana + resisting arrest" may well not be included as well. I imagine these secondary effects are smaller than the primary one, but maybe not? I imagine in a lot of cases, they would be searched for "bullshit PC excuse #2". -Obviously is is about imprisoned marijuana users - a lot more people are arrested than convicted and sentenced to jail time. So there is additional savings throughout the justice system in addition to what is saved by imprisonment. -This does include cartel workers who might have been arrested for some other drug if the cartels' marijuana businesses had dried up. -Other externalities I haven't thought of - post em if you get em Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:According to the ONDCP, (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf page 20) only 1.6% of state prisoners are there for only marijuana crimes(others are imprisoned for marijuana + something else - those would presumably still happen). How many of them are 'possession of a gun while being drug dealing scum'? There are a lot of ancillary crimes that vanish without the 'intent to distribute' or possession charges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:How many of them are 'possession of a gun while being drug dealing scum'? There are a lot of ancillary crimes that vanish without the 'intent to distribute' or possession charges. Yeah I mentioned that as a possibility - I used "resisting arrest" instead of owning a firearm. (Is possessing a legal firearm an additional charge if you also deal drugs? I didn't know that.) Though they wouldn't all go away - presumably some would sell other drugs and have a gun instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:How many of them are 'possession of a gun while being drug dealing scum'? There are a lot of ancillary crimes that vanish without the 'intent to distribute' or possession charges. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
I'm would probably put it lower, just said "not in the top 3" to be safe. "Diverting drivers from alcohol" is higher for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:How many of them are 'possession of a gun while being drug dealing scum'? There are a lot of ancillary crimes that vanish without the 'intent to distribute' or possession charges. I don't think making armed drug dealing a crime is that problematic, but maybe that's just me. Jeffrey posted:Yeah I mentioned that as a possibility - I used "resisting arrest" instead of owning a firearm. (Is possessing a legal firearm an additional charge if you also deal drugs? I didn't know that.) Though they wouldn't all go away - presumably some would sell other drugs and have a gun instead. It's a crime to use them in relation to a drug felony. It's also illegal to possess a gun if you use controlled substances, though I have no idea how often that charge comes up. Xandu fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think making armed drug dealing a crime is that problematic, but maybe that's just me. Well the point of having a gun while drug dealing is that as a black market merchant you're outside the sphere of the law and must protect yourself and your product. Any 'armed drug dealer' problems go away when the product leaves the black market and enters the legal sphere - Budweiser and Heineken don't have shootouts over the beer-dealin' corner bar. Though my point was that using a metric of 'possession only' is a really clumsy line to draw if you're looking to find incarceration costs, as anything from weapon to paraphernalia charges can be easily tacked on - especially when you bring in things like constructive possession.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well the point of having a gun while drug dealing is that as a black market merchant you're outside the sphere of the law and must protect yourself and your product. Any 'armed drug dealer' problems go away when the product leaves the black market and enters the legal sphere - Budweiser and Heineken don't have shootouts over the beer-dealin' corner bar. It specifically was NOT possession only - it was marijuana only. It included production and distribution incarcerations. I assumed that included paraphernalia but I suppose that is left ambiguous. Possession only is an even smaller number.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Budweiser and Heineken don't have shootouts over the beer-dealin' corner bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It specifically was NOT possession only - it was marijuana only. It included production and distribution incarcerations. I assumed that included paraphernalia but I suppose that is left ambiguous. Possession only is an even smaller number. But that is what he is saying. There are a lot of other charges, that are unrelated to marijuana, (thus making them not a part of the figures) that would not exist, if not for the illegality of cannabis. The biggest example I can think of, is "I smell pot" no longer being the magic words that give probable cause for a search.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
ReverendCode posted:But that is what he is saying. There are a lot of other charges, that are unrelated to marijuana, (thus making them not a part of the figures) that would not exist, if not for the illegality of cannabis. Yeah I know that one - I cited it explicitly. I have a feeling that, in many cases, the cops will find another road to searching people because they feel like it, but it definitely makes it harder. Do you think people who are searched with this PC, and then charged, convicted, and incarcerated with something else are a large portion of the prison population? (I guess by large I mean "on the same order as 1.6% for state prison, or higher.") Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Unfortunately that sort of reasoning isn't very persuasive outside of the criminal defense bar. If they're in for something other than marijuana, most voters would probably prefer they stay there regardless of the source of the original PC. If anything, we're already seeing that as an argument by police unions and other anti-legalization groups because it robs them of a valuable tool etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Unfortunately that sort of reasoning isn't very persuasive outside of the criminal defense bar. If they're in for something other than marijuana, most voters would probably prefer they stay there regardless of the source of the original PC. If anything, we're already seeing that as an argument by police unions and other anti-legalization groups because it robs them of a valuable tool etc etc. Yeah, we probably should at least operate as if rule of law is something to be desired. The fact that our police operate in such a poor fashion that we'd rather people not be jailed than leave it up to police is sad and needs to be fixed. However, "people committing crimes are charged with crimes" doesn't seem like a bad thing if we can agree on what should be a crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Any combination of any sort of possession of controlled substances and a firearm is immediately a serious federal charge, this is probably true under most state law too. It's a very simple thing to prove too, so there are plenty of people in prison for a few years because they copped to a firearms charge under those circumstances rather than taking it to trial and risking many times that. On a related note, prosecutors really punish people who go for a trial to make it more likely that everyone else will plead on their terms - less resources used, and more convictions booked. Most people in prison have never seen a jury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Plus, even if you "only" get rid of marijuana charges, even if it isn't a huge percentage, isn't that still a good thing? Especially knowing, as we do, that certain groups are being targeted disproportionately? When a person is stabbing people, you take away the knife, THEN you bemoan the system that made him want to stab people in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
ReverendCode posted:Plus, even if you "only" get rid of marijuana charges, even if it isn't a huge percentage, isn't that still a good thing? Especially knowing, as we do, that certain groups are being targeted disproportionately? It's net positive, but it's not really that good. Your analogy would be better as a mugger who mainly uses a knife but sometimes uses a gun to rob people. Sure, getting rid of the gun will be a net positive, but it doesn't take away the major form of injustice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's net positive, but it's not really that good. Assuming the effort to remove [tool] of his crime is less than that of preventing his crime in the first place by removing his motivation to commit a mugging. The first causes a method shift and the crime still occurs, the second eliminates the crime completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:This is seriously just shameful, if you're selling something as medicine then you better be running QA tests on each batch of product. I'm not involved with the legal marijuana industry in any way but just from reading about the subject I get the impression that the whole industry could use a much heavier dose of science when it comes to all-around operations. Perhaps the New Age and other funny stuff that comes with the subcultural territory is a negative influence on the industry from that perspective? For what it's worth, herbal supplements are in just about the same situation (minus being illegal at the federal level, of course). Which sucks because a few of them (such as St' John's wort) have meaningful evidence suggesting that they actually work. That is, if you can manage to get a high enough dosage, which isn't easy when there's no real correlation between what a product label claims and how much of the active ingredient is actually in there. Stanos posted:Honestly more curious now about how much money they'll save on prisons. The tax revenue can be quantified but can the judicial costs? For California, it wouldn't be a matter of saving money on prisons so much as making progress towards complying with the Supreme Court's demand to quit grossly overcrowding their prisons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think making armed drug dealing a crime is that problematic, but maybe that's just me. In my experience this is really just racism or classism popping up in an unexpected, well-disguised place. Most of the drug dealers I have known hated guns too and never had one around. It was only the ones from lower income areas that tended to have guns. I was dealing with the white middle class level drug dealers, so of course I didn't see guns. It's basically another way to discriminate against the poors and blacks, even though on its face it seems like a common-sense thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Medicinal cannabis should be medicinal grade cannabis. Anything less is not acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 03:15
|
|