|
Chalets the Baka posted:there is nothing stopping Trudeau from accomplishing what he promised to accomplish.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Okay but lol, I don't think going to jail for growing marijuana is quite the human rights issue that going to jail for possessing it is. What Guavanaut posted:Well, there is the Governor General, but I doubt they'd step in over anything less than a constitutional crisis. There is also the UN, although they seem to have been content to ignore treaty obligations regarding drugs in Uruguay. Yeah, technically, but for all intents and purposes, this is a slam dunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
It does put them in direct violation of a UN treaty though, to a greater extent than the US turning a blind eye to state-level legalization while keeping it federally illegal. It will be interesting what the official UN position on it ends up being. Especially given things like this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
The UN's cannabis policy is 100% ineffectual and unenforceable. Canada is going to legalize and there will be no international repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It will be interesting what the official UN position on it ends up being. Especially given things like this. That's great news but at the same time terribly depressing. It's becoming painfully clear that drug abuse ought to be treated at a medical problem not a criminal one but for whatever reason sone unknown powers are preventing this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Okay but lol, I don't think going to jail for growing marijuana is quite the human rights issue that going to jail for possessing it is. Not being able to grow weed is a bummer but it's not really a very big deal to not do. I don't think the lovely law is worth people being able to grow weed a little bit sooner. You can get hosed. I risk jail time with every purchase because my connections are poo poo and I have to transport drugs in a vehicle through multiple counties. Growing at home is the much safer option for me and home-grows are the best way to dismantle a cartel, illegal or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:The UN's cannabis policy is 100% ineffectual and unenforceable. Canada is going to legalize and there will be no international repercussions. finally we can annex canada with the "War on Drugs" casus belli
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
They'll respond by gifting a massive blunt to the president, and much like the last time there will be smoke over the White House.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:You can get hosed. I risk jail time with every purchase because my connections are poo poo and I have to transport drugs in a vehicle through multiple counties. Growing at home is the much safer option for me and home-grows are the best way to dismantle a cartel, illegal or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
The new liberal government said they are putting together a task force of various experts and will be crafting a bill. Do expect action sometime next year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:The new liberal government said they are putting together a task force of various experts and will be crafting a bill. Is there any expectation of any near-term changes, like making possession of 1oz or less a civil infraction nationwide? Like something that doesn't require any new/extra effort and won't complicate long-term plans but will just be a "everyone stop doing XYZ" wave of the pen?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:How do you risk more than a $150 fine? If the law doesn't pass, growing at home is much less safe because the punishments are much more severe, if the law does pass, buying it won't be illegal and so you won't need to grow at home. If you think growing your own weed is anywhere close to the common case, enough to structure the law around, you're crazy. I'm pretty sure you haven't thought this through, or you're just not thinking at all. He's saying that he transports more weight, beyond the maximum for the $150 fine, because his connections are poo poo and he has to buy more from father away. Also, why would you buy when you can just grow at home? Do you have any idea how much cheaper it is? It's a loving plant. poo poo, if you're not a total moron it's always always always more worthwhile to just grow your own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I'm pretty sure you haven't thought this through, or you're just not thinking at all. He has to buy more than 100g at a time? That's nearly 4 ounces...those are some really weird connections if they won't sell him less than that. My point isn't how easy or good an idea it is, it's how common it is and how many people are actually affected in the sense of "they want to grow but don't because of the law" or "they want to grow, so they do but are forced to risk serious legal repercussions". I imagine the number is quite small. Your argument applies to like, tomatoes, and watermelons and (insert ohio produce) as well, but I have to think most people don't grow those either. It's not that I don't want people to be able to grow - I do - it's just that the number of people affected is quite small so waiting a year or two should not be a huge deal to them. I genuinely feel bad for that poster if they can't buy less than 4 ounces at a time and I hope they find better connections but I think that's an extreme case. I want to buy because the experts who have experience growing it for a long time will do a lot better job than I do. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:He has to buy more than 100g at a time? That's nearly 4 ounces...those are some really weird connections if they won't sell him less than that. Pretty sure you have no idea who grows, how many people grow, how common it is, how it's done, and so on. You're just talking out of your rear end, really. Plenty of people grow produce, and there's a lot more incentive to grow something that gets you high. Hell, plenty of folks make beer at home. Also, you have no idea if another ballot measure is going to make it. This is the first one to make it in Ohio, and it had to be bankrolled by wealthy folks wanting to get in on the action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:He has to buy more than 100g at a time? That's nearly 4 ounces...those are some really weird connections if they won't sell him less than that. Hmm this is all real interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
That Ohio thing looks stupid as hell, ten whole companies get a monopoly on the market wow capitalism ftw
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty sure you have no idea who grows, how many people grow, how common it is, how it's done, and so on. You're just talking out of your rear end, really. Plenty of people grow produce, and there's a lot more incentive to grow something that gets you high. Hell, plenty of folks make beer at home. Sure, "plenty" of people make their own beer, what percentage of beer-drinkers do you think that is? All I can find is this lovely infographic that says 1.2 million people homebrew in the united states( http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/membership/homebrewing-stats/ ). If 50% of US adults drink beer on occasion(I think this is an underestimate, you disagree?), we're talking easily 100 million beer drinkers, capping the homebrewing rate at 1.2%. You are right that the risk of another ballot measure not passing in short order needs to be calculated in. Other things like that include the possible positive effects on the movement's momentum, the medical patients harmed because they'd rather suffer than break the law, etc. Passing the measure and not passing the measure both have positive and negative effects, you don't get to just shrug and go with your gut, determining the right action requires analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Do you actually think the majority of marijuana users would grow marijuana if it were legal? I mean, if you think that, say it, there's our disagreement. Give me your good faith top-of-your-head estimate of the percentage of marijuana users that grow right now if you think me saying "it's small" is ridiculous. I'm curious as to why you, or anyone else thinks that we're going to get a better ballot measure next year? Also, if you want to talk numbers, how many people do you think are going to grow and sell when legalization happens? If a minority of people grow, and you're saying they don't matter, then why do you care if only 10 companies can grow and sell cannabis if ResponsibleOhio has their way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Sure, "plenty" of people make their own beer, what percentage of beer-drinkers do you think that is? All I can find is this lovely infographic that says 1.2 million people homebrew in the united states( http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/membership/homebrewing-stats/ ). If 50% of US adults drink beer on occasion(I think this is an underestimate, you disagree?), we're talking easily 100 million beer drinkers, capping the homebrewing rate at 1.2%. 1.2 million is a lot of people currently committing a felony over a plant. I used to be one of those people until a major scare, now I make the drive every few months. I'm in Texas, by the way, so that may make more sense why I come from an "any progress is good progress" perspective. A system with a 1 company monopoly and $600 ounces that still allows for home grows is better than what we have now. vv I get it, just making a direct analogy comparison. i say swears online fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:1.2 million is a lot of people currently committing a felony over a plant. I used to be one of those people until a major scare, now I make the drive every few months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:That Ohio thing looks stupid as hell, ten whole companies get a monopoly on the market wow capitalism ftw That's more companies than meaningfully compete in a lot of industries, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's more companies than meaningfully compete in a lot of industries, to be honest. This. I'll go out on a limb and bet that if the 2015 VI fails, there won't be a successful Ohio VI in 2016 and possibly longer. - Ohio had several groups competing to get their own weed VI on the ballot his year and none got remotely close to getting all their sigs except the RO Oligopoly one. Unless you have just absurd levels of volunteer support and/or a jurisdiction with a really low bar to get VIs on the ballot, you need a lot of money to get signature collectors out pounding the pavement. DC weed was an electoral slam-dunk beyond any weed vote seen in the US, and we still were nowhere near on-track to get signatures until we fielded a serious presence of experienced for-pay sig collectors coming in from other states (hiring scrubs off Craigslist turned out terrible), and that required money from small donors and also Dr Bronner's soap doing a serious amount of funding (largely on ideological grounds). If the 2015 VI fails, do you assume that Ohio volunteers and donors are somehow going to gain a fiery resolve that they lacked this year? - while to one degree off-years are held to be a bad idea for weed votes (though DC did great), as a swingstate Ohio is going to be a propaganda clusterfuck next year. I don't at all see the greater Dem party suddenly getting rah-rah about ganja to get out the vote, but I can easily see a Florida situation where some massive power like Sheldon Adelson runs a Reefer Madness campaign with the sole intent of discouraging Dem turnout (not out of any real drug policy concern) - as mentioned above, 2016 is going to have a mass of states pushing VI and legislative campaigns to legalize, and if Ohio fails this year they're not going to be at the front of the line for support from any non-Ohioans since there are better horses to back for 2016. I don't think we're looking at a simple 12-month delay if Ohio votes this down, it's going to be a couple years for the dust to settle, and in the meantime a failed legalization measure after five in a row just sailed through (and during an year where this is the only legalization VI out there) is going to be a serious PR setback just when we want legalization to be a clear unstoppable wave for 2016. If six states try to legalize in '16 and a couple fail and the rest pass, it's still a big win, but a lone loss right now would be way worse than if Ohio hadn't voted. I'm not saying it'll derail the "legal federally in the next 10-20 years" plan, but as an arbitrary guess a 5% across the board nationwide setback in weed polling could delay any number of states' legal/decrim/medical momentum for a couple years. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
This would probably also hasten the declaration of legal marijuana nationwide, and that would provide large pressure on Ohio to reform the laws from outside interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's more companies than meaningfully compete in a lot of industries, to be honest. It's exactly like the telecom monopolies. Which are anti-competitive and overcharge for a weak product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:It's exactly like the telecom monopolies. Which are anti-competitive and overcharge for a weak product. Where do you live that has 10 competitive telcom providers? Most places only have like 2, maybe 3 wired ones and then the 4 big time cell carriers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
The point is that competition in business is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:The point is that competition in business is good. And the point is that 10 serious players is more competition than most industries have. poo poo how many major tobacco companies are there these days? 5?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
A government sanctioned monopoly brought about by legislation written by the companies holding the monopoly is not a good precedent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Quit arguing with Fishmech. He doesn't just move goalposts, he takes them home with him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Take a freaking hike dude!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:A government sanctioned monopoly brought about by legislation written by the companies holding the monopoly is not a good precedent. I think continuing to keep weed illegal is even worse precedent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I'd much rather have an evil monopoly than large nimbers of Ohioans being arrested for cannabis offences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I'd much rather have an evil monopoly than large nimbers of Ohioans being arrested for cannabis offences. Do you know how many are being arrested? Possession of up to 200g (not quite half a pound) is a misdemeanor with a $250 fine and a possible 30 day max in jail (I'm assuming this is unlikely considering its a misdemeanor). 100g or less has no possible jail time and $150 max fine. Cultivation and possession are considered to be equivalent, as well, so growing a small plant or having a big bag isn't likely to get you more than a ticket. I'm definitely not saying the status quo should remain but why the urgency to hand over all production to a named oligarchy when it seems to me its already pretty safe to smoke dope in Ohio. Full legalization would be much much better. Nintendo Kid posted:Where do you live that has 10 competitive telcom providers? Most places only have like 2, maybe 3 wired ones and then the 4 big time cell carriers. If there is a finite number of players and the market is locked to anyone new coming in then collusion for territory and prices becomes basically guaranteed. Why compete when you can just decide who gets to sell where and charge whatever you want? Unless there is some price structure and/or consumer protections built into the law, it looks like a super bad idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
The DC situation is unfortunate. Legal pot in DC would have been a boon not just to DC but would have gotten momentum for legalization get going in that hub in general (VA and Maryland.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
My greatest fear is legalization will end up like liquor/gun/abortion laws, i.e. completely different in every single state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
As long as the baseline of the legalization is "you can buy weed and cops can't arrest you for it", who cares if Tennessee sells it only in state stores and Vermont sells it at gas stations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
You seem like the kind of person that likes neat orderly things (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:As long as the baseline of the legalization is "you can buy weed and cops can't arrest you for it", who cares if Tennessee sells it only in state stores and Vermont sells it at gas stations? I pretty much agree. Especially given how trivial it is to buy online, the big thing for me is no enforcement. As long as weed in some form is legal, cops aren't really going to care how you purchased it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
e: wrong thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
starry skies above posted:The DC situation is unfortunate. Legal pot in DC would have been a boon not just to DC but would have gotten momentum for legalization get going in that hub in general (VA and Maryland.) Pot is definitely legal in DC, it's just commercial sale that's prohibited. Maryland has pretty strong decrim, and their medical is just starting to go into effect. Maryland also has a decent chance of legislatively legalizing, maybe not in 2016 but likely within a few years of that. Virginia is tougher because of the red south of the state, and the more conservative set of DC-area residents tend to live in Northern Virginia to be amongst the "right sort of people" since DC is "too urban". TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 10:05
|
|