|
falcon2424 posted:How would anyone mount a Supreme Court challenge against this? Nullification of federal law, essentially.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Isn't marijuana legal in Michigan? Medical Marijuana was approved in 08 iirc but nothing about straight legalization.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you explain this, because it doesn't make any sense to me? The nullification cases I'm aware of are either federal law making demands of states (and states can't ignore those demands by passing laws) or states trying to preempt federal action. I don't see any standing to complain that Colorado is only arresting people for marijuana possession if they are under 21.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
Fragmented posted:
Other than that it seems fairly boilerplate for legal controlled substances.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:35 U.S.C. 161 Patents for plants. Potato supremacy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
It makes you feel giddy as gently caress (or at least most intoxicants do to me), and it's usually done in a social context so there's some subtle social pressure to do so. In a way it's a combination of "why do people take sleeping pills" (for the effects) and "why do people watch football together" (for the social aspect).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Such claims could be easily checked by consumers (in more than one way), and this could open up false-advertising issues if it were in fact a placebo difference. I'd bet instead, if anything, that they'll simply brand different strains as this or that, regardless of THC/CBD content (although those numbers would give them a way to "rank" their brands, despite each strain being equally "good", but having different effects, from a consumer's perspective). They'd just say "8 out of 10 customers preferred Good Weed to Bad Weed*", like how pharmaceuticals work now. *After we told them Good Weed is better than Bad Weed
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The official University of Colorado response seems to be "gently caress voters, money is involved. Also, drugs are bad, mmkay?" It's restricted for under-21s anyway and that'd be the vast majority of people living on campus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Read again. Yellow counties have dry towns/cities/communities but are not dry in the entire county. Apparently in Texas a lot of those yellow counties only ban certain types of liquor (eg, everything above 12% ABV) instead of alcohol in general.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:You can start pushing for that, good luck! Precedent is a very real thing to consider and why (eg) the Phelps case was decided as it was.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
HBNRW posted:If you don't consider Uruguay, Netherlands, or Portugal as places I guess. If you'd like to point out where he said "the only two places" feel free.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Zewle posted:Anyone with a deeper knowledge think rescheduling weed seems like its the most likely outcome? The thing is, I'm not seeing what they could schedule it to and still have it be (legally) available for recreational use. I guess in theory they could drop it from the scheduling all together but I don't think that would really be tenable, especially since there *are* some issues related with it (or at least people don't want underaged youth trying it).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Is the DEA the only group that could reschedule it/drop it from scheduling? Or could courts somehow force it to? Apparently the FDA also has powers of scheduling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
mitztronic posted:What issues are those? You realize alcohol is not scheduled, right? Social stigma.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
mitztronic posted:I don't understand how this relates to your post. Social stigma has* no place in determining if a drug is medicinal or not. I'm saying a few things: A. People want to use Marijuana recreationally. B. The scheduling system is for medicinal items. C. Medicinal items generally aren't allowed to be recreationally used (eg, Vicodin), even if they're lower scheduled than Marijuana. D. Scheduling is (as far as I know) the only real restriction on Marijuana (at least on a federal level). E. People aren't going to like it if Marijuana has no (or at least fewer than alcohol) restrictions on it (this is the social stigma part). F. Therefore, dropping from scheduling doesn't seem like a likely outcome, and yet keeping it scheduled also seems to make recreational use illegal federally.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The whole point of the scheduling system is to regulate each drug according to its potential dangers. Heart medications are dangerous enough that letting New Age quacks prescribe them would be disastrous. Marijuana is not. My point is that there's no Schedule for "stuff you can do recreationally". You'll need a prescription no matter the level.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:What are some potential ways the feds could stop the regulation and licensing aspect of Amendment 64? Shutting down individual dispensaries didn't stop MMJ, so I don't think shutting down individual farms would work either. Sorta doubt that'll happen though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Rhandhali posted:What about tying federal law enforcement grants to enforcement of federal marijuana law? My understanding is a lot of police departments live and die by federal money. That seems too extreme for a token measure but not extreme enough if the goal is to actually imprison people with marijuana (since I don't think you can tie law enforcement grants to sentencing requirements).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:And this could be done literally with nothing more than executive order (but won't). Because the headline "Black man legalizes Weed" practically writes campaign ads by itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
KlavoHunter posted:Then he may as well do it right away, long before any elections take place, so everyone has time to forget about it. That's how it works when Republicans force through lovely laws that could be used to electorally gut them. Republicans did do that last cycle, and it hosed them over (Women's rights).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
KlavoHunter posted:Are you sure it wasn't because Republicans couldn't keep their mouths shut about rape during the electoral campaign? Warchicken posted:"Black man returns civil right to Americans, republicans furious." For many conservatives (and even non-conservatives on occasion), drugs are as much a moral issue as rape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:There is absolutely no way this is an opinion held by anything approaching a majority of Americans. A majority? no. A majority in addition to the people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway? Very likely.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
312 posted:This is preposterous, it's being legalized across the country in various ways with even prominent conservatives in conservative states like Indiana trying to decriminalize it. What decade are you living in? If by "various ways" you mean "medicinally", then guess what, there's a reason why it was specifically legalized medicinally (there's no support for outright legalization).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:It's been legalized in Washington and Colorado. Not for medical use, full legalization. "The West" is not "across the country". When Ohio legalizes it let me know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
TheCardhouse posted:You said there was "no support" for outright legalization, which is objectively wrong. Polls show support at around 50% and growing quickly. All indications are that Colorado and Washington are not outliers. They look much more like the first of many. Yes, no support to the extent that Obama descheduling Marijuana wouldn't result in a massive Republican victory. e: Remember those studies where people like universal health care if it's not called as such? That's likely what a lot of weed support is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Would he go to trial in California? I'm sure it won't actually go to trial, but jury nullification here would be amazing. If they're actually arresting them I assume it'd be a federal court.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And a federal court in California would have a jury pulled from California. Statistically half of the jury will have voted to make what this guy did legal. Sort of. Here's a map of the federal districts (and the appeals circuits, but the districts are more important here) :  If someone got arrested for marijuana in (eg) the eastern California district it seems pretty likely that they'd be convicted.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This guy would be in the central or northern district though, right? It said the district attorney was from the Eastern district actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Mandals posted:No snark intended, but so what? Is it really "abusing" if you're just trying to get around some monumentally stupid prohibition? Do you think the same thing about the Sudafed prohibition? (And yes I mean for making meth.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I don't think people are arguing that meth should be enshrines as a coveted social tradition. No, they're asking why Alcohol gets to get a pass when [other thing] doesn't. The answer is that it's a coveted social tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:This is correct. Amendment 64 pretty explicitly says that individual localities cannot make possession or consumption illegal. That would be this: quote:A LOCALITY MAY PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES, OR RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE OR THROUGH AN INITIATED OR REFERRED MEASURE; PROVIDED, ANY INITIATED OR REFERRED MEASURE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES, OR RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES MUST APPEAR ON A GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT DURING AN EVEN NUMBERED YEAR.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:The law is in conflict with the amendment, then, because the prohibition on marijuana facilities was implemented without being placed on a ballot on an even-numbered year. If they did they'll just deny a building permit for [reasons] until they officially ban it, assuming it doesn't take >2 years to get through the courts anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Torka posted:From an admittedly anecdotal perspective, the animosity of big alcohol towards legal weed has never made sense to me. The vast majority of people I've known in my life who enjoy weed enjoy alcohol too and are happy to imbibe either or both depending on location and social context. No doubt teetotal weed smokers exist but I'm pretty sure they're a small minority. It's still different streams that disposable income is going. I imagine a large worry was that marijuana would be sold in grocery stores, which would give them more opportunity to be bought instead of spirits or hard liquors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Idaho goon here. As far as I can tell, the local Republicans really do not give a damp poo poo about this issue. The only ones excited about this are the Libertarians, and they're calling for legalization. I'd be more worried about the Utah-Colorado border, because Utah Republicans are kind of crazy. That's also probably the reason that Idaho's going to keep it illegal (Mormons are crazy re: intoxicants).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No, but they can treat you like Ohio police treat people with Michigan plates. That's a level of hatred which can only be replicated in a football rivalry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:He's saying that there's no conceivable way to stem a potential flood of legal weed from Washington State into Oregon along a major commuter and long haul trucking route. The Oregon cops (who are supposed to enforce laws against marijuana) can't do poo poo to all of the hundreds of thousands of people who cross the state line around Portland daily. Yeah, remember that the Oregon/Washington border is one of those zones that people specifically cross every day for economic benefits (there's no sales tax in Oregon, but no income tax in Washington, so people live in the latter and shop in the former).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That would be Central America. Which would be North America.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:His point is that it's not a good thing for the federal government to arbitrarily decide to enforce or not enforce its own laws. The right answer would be for marijuana to be re-scheduled at the federal level. Descheduled, as iirc there's no scheduling requirement that allows explicit recreational use. For medical marijuana yeah that would be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Hey guys, I'm as anti-slavery as anybody here but federal law says we have to return fugitive slaves to their rightful masters. I hate being in this position of agreeing with plantation owners but the right thing to do is to have the federal government repeal the fugitive slave act. The law is the law and by not following the law these northern states are undermining the legitimacy of the federal government. In this analogy rescheduling (as opposing to descheduling) marijuana would be analogous to freeing slaves but not making them citizens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 21:16
|
|