|
Brave New World posted: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. At least in a regulated market contimated products can be recalled. I once bought a box of tea from a store and found a cigarette butt in the box. They ended up mailing me 10 boxes of free tea. If found some bird poo poo in my cannabis would the black market drug dealer do the same?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
KingEup posted:I once bought a box of tea from a store and found a cigarette butt in the box. They ended up mailing me 10 boxes of free tea. If found some bird poo poo in my cannabis would the black market drug dealer do the same? I'm not a free-market libertarian, but people really have strange ideas about what a "drug dealer" and the "black market" actually are (scare quotes).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
KingEup posted:At least in a regulated market contimated products can be recalled. This is one reason why I was somewhat opposed to the WA initiative (although I voted for it of course, once it came down to it). I favor a decrim approach until full federal legalization. Until that happens (and probably after) angry law enforcement will use every approach available to make life impossible for America's Real Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
It's worth noting that the WA initiative kind of sucked in the end because weed is A) way too loving expensive, especially considering how easy it is to get a green card, and B) there's no bars, tasting rooms, tap room esque establishments and there never will be because god forbid marijuana be treated like alcohol, no it's DEVIL LEAF and if you want to use it you'd better pay cash only, a poo poo load of taxes, and don't dare let anyone else see you smoke it. Like, it's a step in the right direction I guess but gently caress me you can walk down the street in WA and practically trip over someone with better selection selling you weed for like half the price of "legal weed."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
I said this in a GBS thread, but I came to post it here. Massive drug trafficking remains a crime that is still punishable by the death penalty on the federal level. So technically all of these people running drug businesses in states where weed has been legalized could technically be given the death penalty. But don't worry, the federal government or politicians have never lied about anything before you can trust them.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
I can see why you posted that in GBS. There is no way the federal government will pull the rug out from under us at this point. It's getting too big to just arrest/execute everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I can see why you posted that in GBS. I don't think its likely, but it is still technically possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Apthous posted:I don't think its likely, but it is still technically possible. I agree, while technically the government could evict us all using eminent domain, there are no signs of it happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I agree, while technically the government could evict us all using eminent domain, there are no signs of it happening. Technically they would need a reason as well as to pay you: quote:The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Just like the misinterpretation of the "stop and identify" laws where people think that the police can ask for you identification whenever they want. They do actually need to articulate a reason to do so, although what defines that reason can be very loosely interpreted. The legal reason for the cops asking you to identify yourself can never be "because they feel like it", just like the reason for the government taking your land can't be "because they feel like it". Now in practice both entities may do those things because they feel like it, but they do however need to provide some sort of reason in a court of law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Apthous posted:Technically they would need a reason as well as to pay you: Yes, tell the minorities that if they just explained to the officers that they just aren't allowed to randomly stop people for no reason. That would work.  There are too many people involved in the Legal and Medical weed business, probably tens of millions of people, for them to just crack down and arrest everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Yes, tell the minorities that if they just explained to the officers that they just aren't allowed to randomly stop people for no reason. That would work. I have never argued the practicality or likelyhood of anything that I have said, just the strict legal definition. And yes, if the police literally pull over someone for no reason because they are black they are committing a crime. And "din do nuffin" doesn't mean that they were only going 10mph over the speed limit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Apthous posted:I have never argued the practicality or likelyhood of anything that I have said, just the strict legal definition. Apthous posted:So technically all of these people running drug businesses in states where weed has been legalized could technically be given the death penalty. Yeah this isn't suggestive of anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
goons getting trolled by 5 day old accounts itt
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
rscott posted:goons getting trolled by 5 day old accounts itt In D&D?! Say it ain't so!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
rscott posted:goons getting trolled by 5 day old accounts itt Looking at someone's regdate is too hard. Also it's just practice for arguing with some of my more libertarian friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:But you buy unregulated weed already? I, personally, do not. TapTheForwardAssist posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Everything I've read about DC's vote leading up to it said "voters will pass this, but Congress will block it before it ever sees implementation, and it will take years to get it enacted just like decriminalization did". Is there any reason to assume that's not what's happening?
Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Oh neat Apthous brought his awful baby trolling to this thread too  e: Doesn't Obama need to sign off on a congressional order to gently caress with or stop DC's referendum? ^^^^
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Apthous posted:I said this in a GBS thread, but I came to post it here. Nobody gets executed by the state over weed Eliot Ness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nobody gets executed by the state over weed Eliot Ness. Arguably they get something worse: thrown in prison and cast into a permanent underclass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
How are u posted:e: Doesn't Obama need to sign off on a congressional order to gently caress with or stop DC's referendum? ^^^^ no, he doesn't. quote:All laws in the nation's capital are sent to Capitol Hill for review. Congress rarely invokes that power, but when members do want to block District policies, they can attach amendments to unrelated, omnibus legislation too critical to be vetoed. Congress routinely bars the spending of local tax dollars on abortions for poor women using this strategy, and delayed medical marijuana in the District for more than a decade. http://www.hightimes.com/read/will-gop-congress-screw-dc-legal-weed sorry for high times link, it's the first one I found that spelled this out in plain language. edit: It doesn't seem inconceivable to me that DC would direct MPD to stop enforcing possession/cultivation charges in light of congressional interference, but I don't know how likely that is. Speaking personally, I would not grow weed if it were "illegal according to the law, but you definitely won't get prosecuted for it". Ten years ago, I might have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Everything I've read about DC's vote leading up to it said "voters will pass this, but Congress will block it before it ever sees implementation, and it will take years to get it enacted just like decriminalization did". Is there any reason to assume that's not what's happening? Decrim didn't take years to pass, that was medical that took a decade. Decrim was like a few months of serious discussion (after, I dunno, a year or so of seriously kicking the idea around in the Council). The Council passed it in May or something, the House held like one single hearing where the basic gist was "we're not thrilled about this, but let's get some more data or something *mumblemumble*" and the Senate didn't even bother holding a hearing. Completely separately of the official Oversight process, And Harris and Co. tried to do an end-run around Oversight by messing with DC's budget, passed it in the House, but it got left out of the Senate version of DC Appropriations. I and other folks we're running all over the Hill that day in suits going office to office to get assurances from Senate Oversight Committee members that they weren't interested in blocking DC. FWIW, I personally got about 6 or 7 decently strong "I'm pretty sure my boss isn't going to mess with this, but let us know if you see movement in the Senate so I can give her a heads-up" from Democrat Senate offices, largely by targeting likely ally states like WA, DE, AK, CA, etc. quote:e: Doesn't Obama need to sign off on a congressional order to gently caress with or stop DC's referendum? ^^^^ I thought Obama did have to sign off on it; the WH put out a statement when Harris was mucking around saying that Obama would veto any Appropriations bill that included that rider. I again doubt that Oversight will do much about it given how totally they handwaved Decrim, so Appropriations backdoor chicanery is the more likely danger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
KingEup posted:At least in a regulated market contimated products can be recalled. Just in case I didn't make myself clear, I'm for regulation. The link that guy posted was more Refeer Madness than realistic scenario. Quality Control and curbing exploitative practices are the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
How are u posted:e: Doesn't Obama need to sign off on a congressional order to gently caress with or stop DC's referendum? ^^^^ Yes http://dccouncil.us/pages/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law quote:Although at this point the Bill has effectively become an Act, its journey to becoming a law that must be obeyed by the populace is not yet complete. Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law. If, however, upon the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the Bill finally becomes a Law and is assigned a law number. EDIT: actually this may be completely wrong. DC law specifically says it has to be a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution, and concurrent resolutions aren't presented to the President for approval. E2: Ok, re-reading the links I posted before it seems to be different for council bills vs ballot initiatives. Bills need a joint resolution, but initiatives only need a concurrent resolution. Which means Congress can reject initiative 71 entirely on their own. Py-O-My fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Py-O-My posted:E2: Ok, re-reading the links I posted before it seems to be different for council bills vs ballot initiatives. Bills need a joint resolution, but initiatives only need a concurrent resolution. Which means Congress can reject initiative 71 entirely on their own. I would not be surprised in the least if, in a case where Congress blocked 71 by concurrent resolution, that the Council votes it in as a council bill and makes them do it over again in hopes that the POTUS veto it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Its 60 days and a joint resolution for initiatives that change the criminal code. E. Just did some more research and I'm mistaken actually. The 60 day period doesn't start until transmittal, which will be in January, and then only counts time Congress is in session. So mid-March for implementation. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
My question is, why are they waiting until January for transmittal? To make sure all sixty days are under the same congress so there's no weird technicalities?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Of course Reddit would continue to support the discrimination of weed smokers, but WE GOTTA MAKE IT LEGAL THATS IT!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
lmfao reddit pua fedora brony ahahahahaha good one no one's talking about reddit here
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:lmfao reddit pua fedora brony ahahahahaha good one Correct doofus, I'm talking about it. The push from employers to continue drug testing despite legalization is apparently constitutionally protected,.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Correct doofus, I'm talking about it. sorry what I meant is no one wants to talk about the sweet owns you've done on straw-redditors
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:sorry what I meant is no one wants to talk about the sweet owns you've done on straw-redditors I'm pretty much going to post what I like thanks very much YOSPOSter Jeffrey. edit: I'm just hoppin' mad at this http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/09/news/economy/fired-for-smoking-weed/index.html?iid=HP_LN Nonsense fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Congress isn't going to stop it You underestimate their reach, it's far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'm pretty much going to post what I like thanks very much YOSPOSter Jeffrey. That topic (but not that article, obv) was actually discussed itt like 3 or 4 months ago and of course itis one of the many reasons the Federal War on Drugs needs to end, full stop. Afaik, you can't be legally fired for smoking tobacco, nor drinking alcohol, nor taking prescriptions, so surely the ability for employers to fire you for weed should be taken away soon right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:That topic (but not that article, obv) was actually discussed itt like 3 or 4 months ago and of course itis one of the many reasons the Federal War on Drugs needs to end, full stop. You can in Virginia! Not relevant for DC but if we're talking in general you can be fired for literally any reason that isn't explicitly forbidden, which is just race, religion, nationality, etc. I can be fired for wearing the wrong color socks or liking the wrong sports team. Or no reason at all, which means they can fire me for a forbidden reason and just tell me it's for no reason, or not tell me a reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:That topic (but not that article, obv) was actually discussed itt like 3 or 4 months ago and of course itis one of the many reasons the Federal War on Drugs needs to end, full stop. In many states you can be legally fired for smoking tobacco, others have enacted "smokers' rights" laws to stop the practice. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoker_Protection_Law Colorado does have one of these, I believe the current debate is around the wording: “It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours….” Smoking marijuana is not lawful if that refers to violating all laws and not just colorado state laws. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Afaik, you can't be legally fired for smoking tobacco, nor drinking alcohol, nor taking prescriptions, so surely the ability for employers to fire you for weed should be taken away soon right? It's been covered, but generally speaking as an employee in the United States you can be fired for any reason (or no reason, for that matter) as long as your employer does not explicitly (preferably in writing) fire you for being a member of a protected class. Something something freedom something something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:You underestimate their reach, it's far. Yeah but they'll settle for doublebanning the ole 'bort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Multnomah County (Portland) is following Colorado and Washington's lead. They won't prosecute any case that would be legal under measure 91.quote:Multnomah County District Attorney Rod Underhill's office released a statement to The Oregonian on Monday afternoon, saying prosecutors will dismiss a total of 50 pending marijuana cases. All involve marijuana-related activities that will be legal when the new law becomes effective for possession and cultivation July 1, 2015. edit: full story http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2014/11/multnomah_county_district_atto.html#incart_river
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Welp, it's been a week since the referendums in Oregon & Alaska, so I guess it's time to start talking about 2016. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/why-2016-will-be-marijuanas-most-important-year-ever.html/?a=viewall The big prize will be California, which is almost certain to pass it. Other states that will vote (probably) include Maine, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada. In addition, Vermont may or may not legalize via the legislative process: http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/story/d/story/lets-talk-about-legalizing-marijuana-in-vermont/42508/QXgsGXJvnkSpQotFSU64ew Which of course sets a huge precedent for blue states that don't have effective ballot processes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
