|
I'll never get over the way that California is one of those states you'd assume would be in the first wave of legalization, but for some reason the movement in the state is full of squabbling morons strangling themselves and eachother in the crib.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
bango skank posted:I'll never get over the way that California is one of those states you'd assume would be in the first wave of legalization, but for some reason the movement in the state is full of squabbling morons strangling themselves and eachother in the crib. It doesn't help that the medical dispensaries are the ones most opposed to legalization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It doesn't help that the medical dispensaries are the ones most opposed to legalization. Why is that? If they already have the infrastructure in place, wouldn't they get a ton more customers and a huge head start to expand if it goes recreational?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Why is that? If they already have the infrastructure in place, wouldn't they get a ton more customers and a huge head start to expand if it goes recreational? Next-fiscal-quarter-thinking in action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It doesn't help that the medical dispensaries are the ones most opposed to legalization. Somaen posted:Why is that? If they already have the infrastructure in place, wouldn't they get a ton more customers and a huge head start to expand if it goes recreational?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Why is that? If they already have the infrastructure in place, wouldn't they get a ton more customers and a huge head start to expand if it goes recreational? lollin' at "if it goes recreational" in reference to southern California "medical" marijuana dispensaries
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Why is that? If they already have the infrastructure in place, wouldn't they get a ton more customers and a huge head start to expand if it goes recreational? People/business are comfortable with what's working (for them) now, that shouldn't be surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Couple interesting things in recent news: - Vancouver BC becomes the first city in Canada to regulate pot shops. No huge surprise there since they've had "tolerance zones" since the 1990s: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-vancouver-votes-to-regulate-booming-marijuana-dispensary-industry-2015-6 - Neat piece from the NYT about possible conflicts between state legal weed use and getting federal jobs: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/state-marijuana-laws-complicate-federal-job-recruitment.html The fedgov is showing little to no inclination to accommodate past weed use, other than upping the "not tolerated" finger-wagging. A lot of the Law Enforcement type jobs are very strict about it, while CIA just says you have to be "generally" drug free for a year prior to coming on. The article mentions that State Department people who get tapped for random drug testing have a 30 day window in which they can report. As an ex-military guy that blew my mind, since in the military once the word "drug test" comes out of an NCO's mouth, nobody goes anywhere until they've pissed in a cup while a dude stares at your wang. You're quite literally sequestered in some controlled area so that nobody has a chance to run and grab a bottle of fake pee or a catheter, or some potion to confuse the results, or whatever. So being told "hey, go take one this month" is just ludicrously different, and kinda says something about how gung-ho some government offices are or are not about this. Best bit in the article though: quote:But the National Park Service, in a posting for a science education coordinator, might as well say marijuana smokers are welcome. The announcement states outright: “This is not a drug-tested position.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
I've always thought of the NPS as being pretty chill. As long as you're not throwing your joint in a pile of leaves when you're done and starting wildfires, that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Anybody have info about pro-legalization groups by state (particularly any in Kentucky). Was at gaypride in Cincinnati this weekend and a lot of people were passing around petitions, but since I live over the Ohio river in Kentucky I couldn't really sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Marijuana farming is a fairly low risk (for a criminal conspiracy, anyway), huge margin small business enterprise in California and all that will stop overnight if it becomes legal and the valley oligarchs stepped in, so you have a chunk of people up north who are opposed to it because they'll lose their livelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Anybody have info about pro-legalization groups by state (particularly any in Kentucky). Was at gaypride in Cincinnati this weekend and a lot of people were passing around petitions, but since I live over the Ohio river in Kentucky I couldn't really sign. NORML has apparently a chapter in Kentucky, but I'm not sure how big/active it is. MPP doesn't even have really a presence there, so in the meantime the acronym is hijacked by the Kentucky branch of the US Marijuana Party, which... yeah, you can probably imagine how much clout they have. One group that actually has done some stuff in KY is the Kentuckians for Medical Marijuana. They're looking for volunteers in each KY county, so unless NORML has something great going on, I'd get in touch with them. Even if you're not huge into medical, it's at least a step forward. KY legalized CBD treatments last year, and also is allowing non-THC hemp to be grown for industrial use. So the next steps would either be broadening the scope of their MMJ program, or decriminalizing marijuana so that adult possession for personal use results in confiscation and a ticket instead of criminal charges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Former drug warriors are abandoning ship.quote:ASPEN, Colo.—Former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994. She presided over trials for 17 years. And Sunday, she stood before a crowd at The Aspen Ideas Festival to denounce most punishments that she imposed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Marijuana farming is a fairly low risk (for a criminal conspiracy, anyway), huge margin small business enterprise in California and all that will stop overnight if it becomes legal and the valley oligarchs stepped in, so you have a chunk of people up north who are opposed to it because they'll lose their livelihood. And not just their livelihood but their way of life. The culture around that area is really tied to this idea of being a pseudo-outlaw, off the grid, gently caress the man, hippie libertarian - minus any real risk, of course. Legalizing for recreational use means filing out w-2's for your
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
MPP released their list of some 22 candidates for the 2016 run, and their "report card" grades re cannabis. Full article here: https://www.mpp.org/2016-presidential-candidates/ Highlights (Dems marked, all others R) A-: Rand Paul B+: Webb (D), Chafee (D) B: Sanders (D), Perry B-: Hillary Clinton (D) C+: Fiorina, Cruz C: Trump, Pataki C-: O'Malley (D), Graham, Jindal, Kasich D: Biden (D), Huckabee, Bush, Carson, Walker, Rubio F: Christie, Santorum If I have my math right, Republican average is C-, and Democrat average a C+. It's not conclusive, clearly, and doesn't take into account their odds of getting anywhere near the general, but I find it pretty interesting that Republicans hold the top and bottom places as well as the middle (almost have of them are Cs), and the Democrats are spread pretty evenly between B+ and D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:MPP released their list of some 22 candidates for the 2016 run, and their "report card" grades re cannabis. Not terribly surprised, seeing as one of the main Republican talking points is "state's rights". lmao @ Fiorina being opposed to it because she doesn't want more tax revenue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:If I have my math right, Republican average is C-, and Democrat average a C+. Of the realistically possible candidates, the Democratic average is B- and the Republican average is D. Also, how did they get to some of those numbers? Have Perry or Cruz ever said anything pro-miarjuana? e: Perry posted:Again, the best example is an issue I don't even agree with—the partial legalization of marijuana. Californians clearly want some level of legalized marijuana, be it for medicinal use or otherwise. The federal government is telling them they cannot. But states are not bound to enforce federal law, and the federal government cannot commandeer state resources and require them to enforce it. Cruz posted:“If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.” Doesn't sound like actual support to me. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
The bar is set pretty low; I'm sure you could get an A+ just by stating that you don't necessarily have an objection to the general idea of marijuana legalization. There's no credible candidate saying "let's get this done", so you can get pretty marks just by "praising with faint damns."
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Meanwhile Miami-Dade county just decriminalized, and Rand Paul held a fundraiser at a cannabis business event and got a $5k donation, the first ever totally above-board legal cannabiz presidential campaign donation. Also Realonsible Ohio (the "only 10 licensed farms in the state") group just turned in what looks to be all the signatures they need to make it onto the 2015 Ohio ballot. I'm not thrille at the monopoly, but it does allow private personal cultivation too, and since they're almost certainly on the ballot now I'd rather see them succeed than half a big public setback for legal weed only 12 months before the big 5+ states votes in 2016. http://www.theweedblog.com/responsibleohio-700000-signatures-for-marijuana-legalization-initiative/
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:
The idea of putting an issue like this that benefits from turnout of...nontraditional voters on an off-off-year ballot strikes me as utterly insane. Couldn't they have waited one year to put it on the Presidential year? The only people voting in 2015 in Ohio will be geriatrics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Yeah I voted in California in 2010 and I was half the age of anyone else I saw at the polling station.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:The idea of putting an issue like this that benefits from turnout of...nontraditional voters on an off-off-year ballot strikes me as utterly insane. Couldn't they have waited one year to put it on the Presidential year? The only people voting in 2015 in Ohio will be geriatrics. It's possible they're hedging their bets. They don't want it to win so they won't put it in an election year, but if it does win it'll be on terms they find favorable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's possible they're hedging their bets. They don't want it to win so they won't put it in an election year, but if it does win it'll be on terms they find favorable. My conspiracy theory: the monopoly guys know a non-oligarch version is likely to win in 2016, so by running it in 2015 they won't have any real competition, and with enough true believers and enough cash they may be able to shove it through. If I were Ohioan, I wouldn't volunteer on their campaign (let them spend their own money) but I would vote for it and encourage others to do. It still makes one more free state, adds momentum to the cause, and we can fight the monopoly later, especially once it's federally legal and unions of many other growers can muscle in and buy influence (or sue for trade restriction) to expand the number of grow sites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:My conspiracy theory: the monopoly guys know a non-oligarch version is likely to win in 2016, so by running it in 2015 they won't have any real competition, and with enough true believers and enough cash they may be able to shove it through. If I were Ohioan, I wouldn't volunteer on their campaign (let them spend their own money) but I would vote for it and encourage others to do. It still makes one more free state, adds momentum to the cause, and we can fight the monopoly later, especially once it's federally legal and unions of many other growers can muscle in and buy influence (or sue for trade restriction) to expand the number of grow sites. It's definitely more likely to pass in 2016 but I don't see it as a certainty. 52% support full legalization which is a lot closer to comfort than I would like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's definitely more likely to pass in 2016 but I don't see it as a certainty. 52% support full legalization which is a lot closer to comfort than I would like. Ohio's got some weird thing going on where the Legislature is suddenly trying to put on the 2015 ballot a measure to prevent initiatives to grant monopolies in Ohio. So if the legislature gets it on the ballot, and both it and the Responsible Ohio piece get voted in, in theory it would prevent the RO measure from going into effect. It seems to me unclear if that would mean that weed is legal but nobody is allowed to have grow-sites or stores, or whether it would torpedo the whole weed legalization, or what. Although I'd imagine the optics would be terrible if a majority of voters, in an off-year, voted in weed and then the legislature wouldn't let it go forward at all. There are at least some legislators saying they're not trying to block weed, just the monopoly aspect. In whatever case, it sounds like it could open up all kinds of weird legal inclarities and tie up the courts. http://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/ohio-senate-panel-oks-anti-monopoly-item-affecting-ohio-pot http://time.com/3943153/marijuana-legalization-ohio-legislature/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/30/ohio-lawmakers-send-anti-monopoly-measure-to-fall-/
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:[...] If they were just up to blocking the monopolistic aspect, they could challenge that in the courts after the prop passed. They would probably succeed. Like so much other Republican horse poo poo, this is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Beaters posted:If they were just up to blocking the monopolistic aspect, they could challenge that in the courts after the prop passed. They would probably succeed. Good. State sponsored monopolies never go away , and are usually just a form of cronyism. So if republicans can be disingenuous for the betterment of society I wholeheartedly support it regardless of what their intention was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
In Germany folks are currently trying to legalize on a municipal level, and seeing support from some of the political parties. Right now discussions are underway in Berlin, Bremen and Munich, who could be seeing their first coffee shops in the next year or two. Additionally, in my home state of Bavaria there's currently a petition underway to force a referendum on the matter. They already have the required 25,000 signatures, but will continue collecting them up until August in order to compensate for the inevitable invalid ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Ahh you Germans are good, I hope you'll spearhead things in Europe because in Switzerland there are a lot of oppositions for some reasons. At least the government finally agreed that Cannabis has some form of beneficial health effect, it ordered a study on the positive and negative effects and found out it had good effects for people suffering from Cancer or Sclerosis. But at the same time four people from an association of sick people wanting to use Cannabis for relief have been found guilty of growing and distributing plants to their members, at least there was no actual sentence but they were still found guilty. Slowly it's going forward but holy poo poo, are we slow about it. I hope that the movement in the US and Germany spread quickly to other parts...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Portugal famously decriminalized (not legalized) *all* drugs, and I've been here for a month and not seen any terrible social destruction. You smell some weed walking around occasionally, but mostly in nightlife areas in the late evenings where everyone is hanging out drinking anyway. It doesn't seem at all bothersome or intrusive. Portugal's drug czar actually issued a public apology in the mid 2000s, a few years after full decrim, saying that he'd been sure this would cause chaos, but clearly it hadn't, and he was sorry for dragging things out and that they hadn't done this years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Great piece in the Seattle Times if anyone wants a long read: 1 year of legal marijuana sales, 115 years of Seattle Times’ coverage
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 13:52
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Portugal famously decriminalized (not legalized) *all* drugs, and I've been here for a month and not seen any terrible social destruction. You smell some weed walking around occasionally, but mostly in nightlife areas in the late evenings where everyone is hanging out drinking anyway. It doesn't seem at all bothersome or intrusive. I want to say I read an article a few years back in which the authors noted that countries that had undergone decriminalization of drugs also saw (small) drops in drug use. Acquisitive crime didn't increase either. Altogether, that sort of empirical evidence really makes claims that drug decriminalization (and perhaps legalization) would lead to everyone becoming a thieving addict laughable. It's a shame I rarely see people bring that sort of evidence up. Of course, part of a successful decriminalization or legalization movement also involves developing successful public health initiatives focused toward treating drug users in a productive fashion. Given how allergic the US is to social programs, I'm afraid we might get the former without the latter.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
House Republicans shot down a *bipartisan* amendment to remove obstacles to marijuana medical testing, while still keeping it a Sched 1 drug. It's like the absolutely least objectionable "let's study more about this" dick-twiddling navel-gazing move, and yet enough guys somewhere were aghast enough to shoot it down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f593_story.html How do I figure out which Congresspersons are responsible for voting this down so I can send them angry emails with "...as a Marine combat veteran and small business owner..." prominently mentioned? And before anyone guesses, no, noted buzzkill Andy "Buzz Killington" Harris (M.D., R-MD) was actually in favor of this amendment. I mean, he's in favor of it since he's convinced that medical testing will prove weed is worthless, but I give the man full props for at least wanting to see objective research on this. I'm honestly pretty baffled, the guy who who's been the single biggest obstacle to DC legalizing marijuana was in favor of this, and yet there were still yet stricter assholes out there who object so, so strongly to even testing marijuana in laboratory settings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Headlines trumpeting that you can now have weed on airplanes in Oregon: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2015/07/12/passengers-can-now-carry-marijuana-on-oregon-flights-322949070/ The actual details are pretty dull: TSA basically just said that it's not any concern of theirs, so if you have weed they'll just ask airport police to come and check that you're following Oregon law, and if you are and you're flying to somewhere else within Oregon, they won't prevent you from boarding the plane with cannabis. So no huge deal, but vaguely amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
From a couple weeks back, but the first American Indian reservation just took advantage of the Federal clarification last year that they have just as much right (relatively speaking) to legalize marijuana as states do, so the very tiny Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe is going to start growing recreational cannabis on tribal land, and selling it on their reservation starting on 1 January. http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/06/17/south-dakota-marijuana-indian-tribe-flandreau-santee-sioux/36247/
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Cue cops setting up checkpoints on all roads to and from the reservation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
snorch posted:Cue cops setting up checkpoints on all roads to and from the reservation. There's already quotes in the news from SD authorities basically saying "well we can't stop you, but our read is that you can *only* sell weed to reservation residents/members, not to tourists." But I doubt there's any real power there. Curious to see if SD tries to do what Oklahoma and Nebraska are doing to Colorado, trying to sue them for the increases enforcement costs of having to arrest people crossing out of CO with weed. Sheriffs blubbering about how their jails and courts are packed with possession offenders and CO should have to stop legalizing, or pay for the increased enforcement. Btw, despite polling heavily in favor, looks like Vermont "didn't get around to" legalizing weed this year because of the vitally important other stuff on their legislative plate, like squirrels and maple syrup and whatnot I assume. So next year the pro-weed folk will do a full-court press next year's legislative session since their very pro-ganja governor isn't running for reelection and they want to make sure they have a gov they can depend on to sign it and not veto. If somehow they don't, watch for weed to be an issue in the 2016 governor's race. It had looked like at least one state, likely RI or VT, would legalize legislatively prior to the 2016 election, but looking less sure now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Nothing definite, but the Seneca Nation in upstate New York is looking into legalizing as well: http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/2015/07/13/maurice-john-says-senecas-interested-in-cannabis-business/30104701/ There are several tribes looking hard at legalizing, and one tribe who has, so there's a fair bit of room for a small tribe here and there to just hold a council meeting and then suddenly we have a small pocket of a ban-state that has fully legal marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
There was a story in my local paper (Grand Junction, CO) yesterday, and this appears to be the same story - the TL;DR is that some folks opposed to legal cannabis in Colo are using RICO to try and shut things down, and they've succeeded once already. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARIJUANA_BUSINESS_LAWSUITS?CTIME=2015-07-13-16-20-04&SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Nothing definite, but the Seneca Nation in upstate New York is looking into legalizing as well: http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/2015/07/13/maurice-john-says-senecas-interested-in-cannabis-business/30104701/ Oh God, please do this. The people that live immediately around them are all Republican rednecks and the aneurysm they have will be amazing. Also, I'm like 20 minutes away from the nearest reservation. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 16:11
|
|