|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Fringe idea here, but if 2016 is going to have more young voters, a few more old ones will die off, 5+ states will be having their own legalization votes, and Sheldon presumably won't be pouring bajillions into "No", could Florida just skip over all this stuff and straight legalize weed? They had 57% for medical but missed because (bafflingly?) they went for a constitutional amendment. Is it just totally implausible that they could summon a straight 50% for full legal under a proper alignment of the planets in 2016? Amendments are the only way for FL laws to get on the ballot.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I could see it passing in Montana but Arizona seems like a big stretch, whatever happen to it passing in California or did they just give up for now? http://ballotpedia.org/Marijuana_on_the_ballot#tab=By_year California and Massachusetts are locks. (Polling this spring in MA gave it anywhere from a seven-point to a 16-point lead.) Maine is probable too. If Alaska is legalizing in 2014, I think that for 2016, it puts Nevada in the lean-yes camp, and makes Montana and Arizona legitimate battlegrounds. Which makes the only real wastes of time on that list Wyoming and Mississippi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
What would Sheldon lose if Rick Scott lost?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What would Sheldon lose if Rick Scott lost? Some casino deals iirc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Amendments are the only way for FL laws to get on the ballot. So we're hosed, in other words. People say United for Care did a bad job, but considering they lost by a couple percentage points and went up against hundreds of hours of attack ads, I think they did alright. I hope they figure out what went wrong and come back stronger than ever. John Morgan sent out an E-mail assuring us he'd take the fight to Tallahassee and force legislators to listen to the will of the people, but I'm more confident than ever that's not happening. Here's John Morgan's talking to the media about losing: http://bcove.me/em7ejm43 turnip kid fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Fringe idea here, but if 2016 is going to have more young voters, a few more old ones will die off, 5+ states will be having their own legalization votes, and Sheldon presumably won't be pouring bajillions into "No", could Florida just skip over all this stuff and straight legalize weed? They had 57% for medical but missed because (bafflingly?) they went for a constitutional amendment. Is it just totally implausible that they could summon a straight 50% for full legal under a proper alignment of the planets in 2016? No one likes a loser. Marijuana may find trouble getting the same level of support until a few cycles put this vote further along in peoples' memories, until then there could be a backlash of "oh, that thing that we already rejected last time?".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:No one likes a loser. Marijuana may find trouble getting the same level of support until a few cycles put this vote further along in peoples' memories, until then there could be a backlash of "oh, that thing that we already rejected last time?". I think you are underestimating the midterm turnout gap. It did also fail in california under similar conditions. There's data here, sorry I don't have a simple number, but look at how the gap varies by age: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2014-midterms/turnout/ I think it was a pretty bad move to go for a midterm year but if they do it again in 2016 I'm guessing it will pass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
I wish Morgan would have parsed out his dollars a little more evenly. He dumped everything into getting it onto the ballot and not enough into the actual vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
In DC, Congress only has 60 days to block it. That means that it only has to contend with the lame duck, which is going to be in an appointment frenzy. I don't think there's really a mechanism Congress could realistically use to impede implementation, outside that time period. I'm also skeptical that the will exists. I'm very encouraged by the strong margin of victory for VI 71. That, to me, suggests that the Council and Mayor (and the ANCs) have a resounding mandate from the people of the District to get this thing done. That makes a very long delay (the Council can put an emergency hold on this for 225 days, before the day next month the Initiative takes effect) or a weak legalization mechanism less likely. We pretty much know that from looking at Grosso's bill. I haven't given it a microscopic lookthrough but I'm not really pleased that taxes go back to the police department instead of the District general fund or whatever. That's my only real quibble with how it stands right now - we'll see what they come up with in rulemaking, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:In DC, Congress only has 60 days to block it. That means that it only has to contend with the lame duck, which is going to be in an appointment frenzy. I don't think there's really a mechanism Congress could realistically use to impede implementation, outside that time period. I'm also skeptical that the will exists. I'm confused. I thought DCs measure just allowed possession not sales. Are sales coming too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Plan is for dc to add sales through legislation, but it's not in the proposition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:In DC, Congress only has 60 days to block it. That means that it only has to contend with the lame duck, which is going to be in an appointment frenzy. I don't think there's really a mechanism Congress could realistically use to impede implementation, outside that time period. I'm also skeptical that the will exists. Isn't it 60 working days, thus putting Congress's deadline somewhere in February due to the December recess? Still, that's a huge chunk of their time gone prior to the new Congress being seated, and with the remaining time I wouldn't imagine it'd be a priority given it needs to clear both houses and the president. That said, Congress does indeed have other mechanisms: just like they did with medical marijuana, and tried to do with decrim, they can attach riders to must-pass legislation like DC's appropriations bill saying "PS you can't use any of this money to legalize weed". That's how they delayed medical for a decade, and have at various points blocked DC from having abortion clinics, needle exchanges, and other such cartoonishly evil hijinks. There was even a danger for a bit that they could gently caress with the budget and bar DC from printing ballots with Initiative 71 on it, or even more evilly prevent city-funded ballot counters from counting the ballots (also done in the past I believe). That said, it's an open question as to whether they can block passive activities like "don't arrest anyone for weed" with budgetary games. They could block DC from using any funds (including internally-raised revenue) to pay for a Marijuana Control Board and its functions, but in theory I imagine the city could just respond with "fuckit then, we can't spend money on controlling it, so we just won't spend a dime prosecuting it, so suck it." quote:I'm confused. I thought DCs measure just allowed possession not sales. Are sales coming too? 71 allows possession, home-growing, transfer without pay, paraphernalia, etc. It does not include commercial sale since DC initiatives are forbidden from incurring any financial burden on the Council (even if said burden would pay back in profit from revenue). So since sales would require the city to have a board, inspectors, extra staff at a licensing office, etc. we were not allowed to put sales on the initiative. But members of the Council have said from early on that if the voters legalized, the Council would put in place a sales framework so that poo poo wouldn't just be all Wild West. My understanding is that folks could be legally growing in their closets and sun-rooms by maybe early 2015, gifting baggies to 21+ friends, but no chance at all for sales until at the very earliest early 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
What's with the substantial deejay before these laws go into effect? Like, couldn't the police simply stop arresting for marijuana treated crimes as soon as the vote has been verified or whatever? If something happens, they can always start making attests again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:What's with the substantial deejay before these laws go into effect? Like, couldn't the police simply stop arresting for marijuana treated crimes as soon as the vote has been verified or whatever? If something happens, they can always start making attests again. For DC specifically many laws passed are either directly subject to Congressional approval or are allowed to be invalidated with no further recourse within a certain time frame. For other areas, there's a lot of people who refuse to trust laws with immediate effect on principle. "You're voting for legal weed BUT DON'T WORRY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TIME TO DO IT RIGHT!" does a ton to assuage the fears of a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise support it. Even though it's pointless. And then there's stuff like Washington state and Colorado's actual full on legalization with licensing systems for stores and poo poo - those legit needed time to get the new staff in and rules arranged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Did the DC board of elections screw up? The text of the initiative says 30 days, and DC law appears to say 30 days for initiatives (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/1-1001.16.html) but also says in an earlier section (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/1-206.02.html) that it's 60 days if it modifies the criminal code.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:But members of the Council have said from early on that if the voters legalized, the Council would put in place a sales framework so that poo poo wouldn't just be all Wild West. Whats wrong with it being all wild west? Anyone can sell to anyone else, done. Seems like the most sensible policy to me given the ludicrous restrictions they are beholden to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Py-O-My posted:Did the DC board of elections screw up? The text of the initiative says 30 days, and DC law appears to say 30 days for initiatives (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/1-1001.16.html) but also says in an earlier section (http://dccode.org/simple/sections/1-206.02.html) that it's 60 days if it modifies the criminal code. No, the way it works is 71 takes effect after 30 days but Congress can pass a joint resolution disapproving it within 60 days. I don't think there's a rule of construction that indicates the days are working days - pretty sure it's calendar days in the absence of any language otherwise. Powercrazy posted:Whats wrong with it being all wild west? Anyone can sell to anyone else, done. Seems like the most sensible policy to me given the ludicrous restrictions they are beholden to. Not a great idea frankly, I wouldn't buy unregulated tobacco, alcohol or milk. And given the racial politics involved I think it's more than fair to implement some sort of scheme that avoids a trade of discrimination in criminal enforcement for discrimination in economic benefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Whats wrong with it being all wild west? Anyone can sell to anyone else, done. This scares away a lot of the more handwringing-y potential voters. In Colorado and Washington, tons of the voters loved the fact that there was Serious Deliberations and Strict Checks on stores, who could sell, etc. It helps to build an image of "we're not supporting criminals, you're not supporting criminals, it's ok to have weed". This same sort image is also why medical marijuana tends to get legalized first and in more places - it has a deliberate avoidance of criminal associations. Frankly, it's a thing that's kind of been made necessary by years of fear mongering that Reefer Madness was a documentary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Whats wrong with it being all wild west? Anyone can sell to anyone else, done. Seems like the most sensible policy to me given the ludicrous restrictions they are beholden to. Even if safer than alcohol, the milk parallel is a good one: it's still a product that's liable to contamination (accidental or intentional), and a product that the vast majority of people would agree shouldn't be sold to 8yr olds. So it'd be a bad idea overall to have a setup that allows legal private production, has a presumed large body of interested buyers, but no legal way to get weed from legal private producers to very interested buyers, thus rewarding the sketchiest guys who want to bend the rules, who might also be the exact kind of guys fond of adulterating products to make weight, mislabeling, ignoring age restrictions, etc. It's great that DC allows homegrown, but for actual commerce you do want properly licensed individuals dealing with this. Otherwise we're all going blind from hillbilly moonshine and catching e-coli from Farmer Bob's All Natural Unpasteurized Milk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Even if safer than alcohol, the milk parallel is a good one: it's still a product that's liable to contamination (accidental or intentional), and a product that the vast majority of people would agree shouldn't be sold to 8yr olds. So it'd be a bad idea overall to have a setup that allows legal private production, has a presumed large body of interested buyers, but no legal way to get weed from legal private producers to very interested buyers, thus rewarding the sketchiest guys who want to bend the rules, who might also be the exact kind of guys fond of adulterating products to make weight, mislabeling, ignoring age restrictions, etc. Hmm, you mean like how it is RIGHT NOW. Basically right now all the concerns you mention exist. But there is the added risk of getting a arrested for felony possession. So just take away the criminal risk, and introduce civil risk (by say intentional misrepresenting what you are selling etc.) and you've improved things with no additional legislative input. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Not a great idea frankly, I wouldn't buy unregulated tobacco, alcohol or milk. And given the racial politics involved I think it's more than fair to implement some sort of scheme that avoids a trade of discrimination in criminal enforcement for discrimination in economic benefit. But you buy unregulated weed already? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Even if safer than alcohol, the milk parallel is a good one: it's still a product that's liable to contamination (accidental or intentional), and a product that the vast majority of people would agree shouldn't be sold to 8yr olds. So it'd be a bad idea overall to have a setup that allows legal private production, has a presumed large body of interested buyers, but no legal way to get weed from legal private producers to very interested buyers, thus rewarding the sketchiest guys who want to bend the rules, who might also be the exact kind of guys fond of adulterating products to make weight, mislabeling, ignoring age restrictions, etc. You're buying your own pandering rhetoric again. What are these cannabis contaminants you're so concerned about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This scares away a lot of the more handwringing-y potential voters. I agree with this from a political strategy standpoint, people love regulation. But in the unique case of DC where they can't spend any money "supporting" marijuana, they should "go Galt" as it were. It would be a huge improvement to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're buying your own pandering rhetoric again. What are these cannabis contaminants you're so concerned about? idk about you but it would be pretty nice if i knew the bud i was smoking wasn't covered in pesticides, wasn't grown with slave labor, etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Hmm, you mean like how it is RIGHT NOW. Quit being a baby about it. Regulation is a fantastic approach in that it allows wishy-washy moms to feel better about legalization, full stop. Who cares really what the regulations are as long as its legal. You'll still be able to get your weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
rscott posted:wasn't grown with slave labor, etc As long as he/she is an American most people don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
How are u posted:Quit being a baby about it. Regulation is a fantastic approach in that it allows wishy-washy moms to feel better about legalization, full stop. Who cares really what the regulations are as long as its legal. You'll still be able to get your weed. I can get "my weed" now, but I'd rather people not go to jail about it. So if the choice is like DC, where it can either stay illegal, or be legal but unregulated (because of congressional mandates about spending money on marijuana regulation), I'd rather it be unregulated. And if you read my next post you'd see that I agree with the political strategy of regulation, but that isn't on the table in DC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Regulation is coming to DC, it just has to be passed by the city council instead of by referendum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
How are u posted:Regulation is coming to DC, it just has to be passed by the city council instead of by referendum. And if that is the what happens, great! But I'm concerned that won't be how it shakes out given the relationship between the DC City Council and Congress TTFA and others have pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're buying your own pandering rhetoric again. What are these cannabis contaminants you're so concerned about? Mold and mildew are the most common. There can be issues with people not flushing the nutrients out of the plants right also. None of that is going to kill you, but it will make the smoke harsher and unpleasant. Also, dispensaries are required to pay a lab to test for these things and pesticides, at least in Oregon. If it's cured before it's completely dry that can cause black molds which can possibly cause a lot of harm. It's easy to say that people who have grown and smoked before aren't going to have this problem, but there are a lot of people who don't even know what cannabis looks like, much less how to smoke it. Fuckt Tupp fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Right now we have issues with edibles having much lower amounts of THC than advertised so even if no one dies they can still get ripped off with snake oil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Right now we have issues with edibles having much lower amounts of THC than advertised so even if no one dies they can still get ripped off with snake oil. Yeah, the current problem with most of the labs is that they are pay to play in that they'll bump up your test percentage if you grease their palms a little. Again, this should be solved by proper regulations. Medibles suck anyway unless you're in severe pain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Toxic levels of ammonia in black market cannabis versus NIDA supplied cannabis: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02281.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false Lead poisoning from black market cannabis: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc0707784 Other contaminants in black market cannabis (fungus, glass, pesticides, sand other heavy metals) - references 80-86: http://www.jabfm.org/content/24/4/452.full.pdf Not to mention tobacco - probably the most common contaminant. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Toxic levels of ammonia in black market cannabis versus NIDA supplied cannabis: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02281.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false One article saying there could be ammonia in 'street' weed, I don't have access so I can't see whether or not they qualify any more than that, but the conclusion is "maybe lets take more looks at vaporizers" Another article where dealers put actual lead shavings in the baggies. And a third that seems to be various reasons you would want to prescribe cannabis, but under Risks: they list the lethal dosage [of cannabis] at 15-70g for humans, which according to every other source I have read is too low by about 100x or more. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what that paper is trying to say though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
ReverendCode posted:And a third that seems to be various reasons you would want to prescribe cannabis, but under Risks: they list the lethal dosage [of cannabis] at 15-70g for humans, which according to every other source I have read is too low by about 100x or more. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what that paper is trying to say though? On phone, so my googling isn't the best but one source I found suggested that 15-70g actually refers to the ld50 for THC, which is the active ingredient of cannabis and is usually measured in milligrams when talking about dose. For the record, the ld50 of caffeine is apparently a little under 20 grams (for a 75-kg human).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Toxic levels of ammonia in black market cannabis versus NIDA supplied cannabis: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02281.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false That lead poisoning link referred to a series of cases in Germany that happened in 2008. That sounds like a Russian Mob tactic to make the bag weigh more. I used to have a buddy that was a small time dealer that would drip water onto buds to make bags weigh more. But lead? That's anti-social behavior right there, and something I doubt that would ever happen in the modern American cannabis market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
It's very amusing to imagine a bunch of PNW smokers totally at sea with regard to identifying kind, unadulterated weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
We're kinda getting onto a tangent here, but outside of hardcore libertarian/an-cap folks I can't imagine most people wouldn't prefer to have some level of commercial regulation for wider sale (but still allow private growing for personal use). Cannabis is a product for human consumption, that alone should mean it shouldn't be something total strangers sell you on the street. I'm not morally offended by people selling homemade tamales on the streetcorner or selling moonshine out the back of their truck, but I agree that technically it shouldn't be legal due to safety and transparency concerns. If a handful of folks want to roll the dice and buy unlicensed consumables, I'm not scandalized, but on a wider level it's a social good to make sure sellers are following healthy and safe procedures and that consumers are properly informed as to what they're buying. EDIT: and I'm going to go ahead and consider anyone who finds that unreasonable to be a 20yr old white middle class college kid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Cannabis is a product for human consumption, that alone should mean it shouldn't be something total strangers sell you on the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm on board for this, but the problem is that the current state of affairs is that total strangers are selling it you on the street, because there's no way to do it legally. While I'd prefer some regulation, until we can get that regulation, we shouldn't be jailing people for selling plants. Right, but DC is looking at a situation where it's legal to have weed but not sell it. I'm not totally clear on what the penalty for weed dealing is in those circumstances, but I'd be fine with it being the same penalty as you'd give to people selling homebrewed beer out of the back of their truck without a license. In any case, I look forward to stores in the Washington Post about hundreds of people flooding home supply stores throughout the greater DMV region to buy home-grow supplies, and a huge flood of "how do I grow weed at home???" posts in every cannabis forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:We're kinda getting onto a tangent here Under what circumstances is it a tangent? This is how people will be prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:35
|
|