|
Remember jamming up a dispensary in Oregon means an Oregon jury voting unanimously to enforce an unpopular law. The people the feds would go after are business owners with no prior criminal history, lawyers on retainer, and community ties. It costs millions of dollars to prosecute a federal case and wasting it on a mistrial and lowering your conviction stats would be a huge black eye for the AG.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Yeah it seems to me that the DOJ would run out of resources quick trying to fight a many-front war against all of these states that will be hostile to what they're trying to do, I don't know enough about the DOJ to know how true my assumption is though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Plus any attempts to attack the industry likely would be seen as a really dangerous precedent, and I'd think you'd see a lot of unity through the MJ business world to make sure that the first shots fail resoundingly. Again with every passing year, and almost every month, there are more people who are gaining financial and political power from cannabis, so we might find out the hard way how far past the tipping-point we are.quote:Yeah it seems to me that the DOJ would run out of resources quick trying to fight a many-front war against all of these states that will be hostile to what they're trying to do, I don't know enough about the DOJ to know how true my assumption is though. To me, the two most significant things Sessions said at his senate interview were (paraphrasing): that DOJ only has so many resources to use on everything, and that if there's a conflict between federal law and state law then Congress needs to address that disparity. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
What can they do? Local, State authorities may certainly decline to enforce Federal Law but aside from that there isn't much that may be done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What can they do? Local, State authorities may certainly decline to enforce Federal Law but aside from that there isn't much that may be done. On the State level? People can harass their federal reps to do something; the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has been a huge help, so just having Congress put a leash on DOJ/DEA/etc is huge. For the state itself, refusing to enforce federal law is much more than a small contribution. If Texas just stops arresting 70,000 people per year for cannabis possession, it's not like the US Marshals are going to arrest 70k to make up for it. The Feds have (and can continue to) have a really chilling effect on legit cannabis business, but if the states don't do the majority of the work enforcing the drug war, the Feds are limited to high-level busts, or wasting huge amounts of limited time and money on minor busts. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Given that we don't have rational actors in the drivers seat right now, and we already are committing to a sisyphean waste of money in regards to border policing, I wouldn't put too much faith in "lack of resources" dictating policy. I suppose border policing is a more popular policy then weed crackdown, but then I go back to the irrational reactionaries we have who are deaf to criticism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Given that we don't have rational actors in the drivers seat right now, and we already are committing to a sisyphean waste of money in regards to border policing, I wouldn't put too much faith in "lack of resources" dictating policy. Yes, but. Even envisioning the Trump administration at its most irrational, there are still practical limitations on time, people, and money that they can't overcome. A border crackdown is way more popular, and its primary victims are non-citizens and poor, as opposed to weed crackdowns where public sentiment is in favor of legalization, and the people you can nail on legal issues are wealthy and part of a $7b industry that's incredibly touchy about its precarious position. quote:Remember jamming up a dispensary in Oregon means an Oregon jury voting unanimously to enforce an unpopular law. The people the feds would go after are business owners with no prior criminal history, lawyers on retainer, and community ties. It costs millions of dollars to prosecute a federal case and wasting it on a mistrial and lowering your conviction stats would be a huge black eye for the AG. I really hadn't thought much about this aspect, and it's a really good point. I'd imagine a federal jury in Portland is not going to be incredibly enthused to convict the owner of a legal dispensary in their state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Given that we don't have rational actors in the drivers seat right now, and we already are committing to a sisyphean waste of money in regards to border policing, I wouldn't put too much faith in "lack of resources" dictating policy. The equivalent of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment but for recreational weed picked up quite a few Republican votes last congress and was voted down quite narrowly, I was pretty surprised. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/03/house-votes-to-ban-some-pot-law-enforcement-cut-dea-budget quote:The one narrowly defeated measure in the string of late Tuesday and Wednesday votes would have prevented federal prosecutors and anti-drug agents from blocking implementation of state recreational marijuana laws. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
quote:That measure, introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., failed 206-222, with 45 Republicans voting in favor and 24 Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, voting against it. I realize a party isn't a monolithic block, but how did the Dems manage to get 45 R defectors, but couldn't get all their people, much less the drat *head of the DNC* onto the same page?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Unfortunately there are still too many drug warrior Dems and DWS is one of the worst, she even voted against Rohrabacher-Farr.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Minnesota lawmakers are now throwing up some bills for recreational weed to be legalized fully as soon as 2019. It's not expected to pass, but the past couple years has been full of huge surprises so who knows. http://www.fox9.com/news/234526260-story
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What can they do? Local, State authorities may certainly decline to enforce Federal Law but aside from that there isn't much that may be done. Most people are here are talking about raids and crackdowns, but I think the biggest threat would be if the DOJ can somehow find a way to withhold other federal funds from legalized states. That's kind of how they forced states to raise the drinking age to 21. All the issues in this thread that would prevent a crackdown like conviction rates, juries, prosecutors and manpower issues could all be irrelevant if they try something different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Yes, but. Assuming they get stymied on raid cooperation and get cold feet about the manpower needed, I assume they would then move instead to indirect action like cutting federal funds until they get cooperation. Would the tax income from weed sales cover the shortfall left from the absence of grants? Has anyone in the lobby groups tried to figure this out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Poppyseed Poundcake posted:Most people are here are talking about raids and crackdowns, but I think the biggest threat would be if the DOJ can somehow find a way to withhold other federal funds from legalized states. That's kind of how they forced states to raise the drinking age to 21. All the issues in this thread that would prevent a crackdown like conviction rates, juries, prosecutors and manpower issues could all be irrelevant if they try something different. That would first require them to do new federal spending, in order to withhold that spending - that's how the drinking age law worked. And I don't expect the Trump administration to do much new federal spending!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The equivalent of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment but for recreational weed picked up quite a few Republican votes last congress and was voted down quite narrowly, I was pretty surprised. Rohrabacher is back at it again this week, again with legislation to block the feds from tampering with *recreational* cannabis in legal states: https://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/gop-congressman-introduces-respect-state-marijuana-laws-act/ posted:Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday that would resolve the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws and allow states to determine their own marijuana policies. EDIT: just wrote my Congressman asking him to support this; you can find yours at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and most of them have a browser email submission page. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Yes, but. Sentiment is pro legalization but that's only one part of how people will react. Sure they'll be pissed but never really expected the feds to let it happen. 2 years in I still can't believe I can walk into a pot store. Can't miss what you never had or never expected to keep in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Another interesting case: Peru is considering legalizing medical cannabis, straight from the President's office. Apparently they recently busted a cannabis club in Lima that was providing cannabis medicine to 80 ill children, mostly with epilepsy, who had been trying for years to get a legal exemption, so that caused some bad press. The downside is the ultra-conservative (and gay-bashing) party Fuerza Popular holds more than half of congress, and is headed by Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the imprisoned former dictator or Peru. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Peru-Proposes-to-Legalize-Medicinal-Marijuana-20170209-0030.html Like I said, cannabis is on the agenda just everywhere these days. EDIT: And Brazil just licensed its first cannabis remedy, Sativex oral spray: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-cannabis-idUSKBN1502AN TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Sativex is a UK pharmaceutical, it was briefly used by the NHS I think? It has no significant clinical properties (it doesnt work). e; if we actually want legalised medical uses then anyone using medical products that flat out don't work will not further that cause, or that of further research
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Rhode Island has been teetering on the edge for years, but having MA legalize just might push them over. Last month's poll shows 59% support for legalization in the state, and advocates believe they have majority support in both houses: http://www.rifuture.org/rhode-island-legislature-support-cannabis/
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Sativex is a UK pharmaceutical, it was briefly used by the NHS I think? It has no significant clinical properties (it doesnt work). Sativex is pretty much the only whole plant cannabis extract that has a significant research base. Where are you gettng your information?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Sativex is pretty much the only whole plant cannabis extract that has a significant research base. Where are you gettng your information? That said research base notes significant problems, though. I'll cite a failed phase 3 and an earlier meta-analysis. The meta analysis notes small, non-significant improvements can be objectively measured in the short term, but disappear in followup. Subjective changes show improvement: if we're discussing spasticity decrease in epilepsy, this isn't consistent, whereas subjective measures from the patient show a good increase. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793241 Here below we have a failed phase 3 for cancer pain treatment. The study did not show cannabis was effective, and so the phase 2 results are immediately referred to instead. That's not great science. It's not academically sound to use a phase 2 to justify a phase 3, fail all metrics you've set for the phase 3, and go "oh well the phase 2 worked". http://www.pharmafile.com/news/197172/late-stage-failure-otsuka-and-gw-cancer-pain-drug We're dealing with a substance that does *something* but what exactly it works objectively on, in the research or in vivo, is not really clear. I also couldn't find a blind trial comparing placebo/sativex/cannabis showing sativex as having a superior outcome. Frankly I'd like to be able to see those results, it'd present indications that there may be something occuring that we're missing. Refining the ill-defined but noticeable benefits of a few hundred psychoactives into a medical product is going to be hard and Sativex is not exactly promising in its total inability to reach significant, objective improvements. e; reformatted post for making no sense Spangly A fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
The leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virginia just came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana:Ralph Northam posted:We need to change sentencing laws that disproportionately hurt people of color. One of the best ways to do this is to decriminalize marijuana. African Americans are 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in Virginia. The Commonwealth spends more than $67 million on marijuana enforcement — money that could be better spent on rehabilitation. Still, it'll probably be an uphill battle in the state legislature: http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/31/virginia-marijuana-decriminalization-legislation/72636/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
This isn't super clear but I don't think Sessions is going to engage in some foolish all-out war on weed like some people thought he would. http://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/02/07/sheriff-jones-meets-with-atorney-general-nominee-jeff-sessions/ quote:As for marijuana, Jones says his conversation with Sessions didn't lead him to believe much would change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
If Sessions stays chill, and particularly if Rohrabacher passes his new amendment, then the prospects will have shifted *dramatically* in our favor. Spent the last couple days at the Capitol in Austin manning a booth for a MPP/NORML collab, and basically everyone who's stopped at our booth has been supportive of the effort for decrim and for expanded medical. The House co-sponsor for the Decrim bill is also head of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, so that makes it a ton more likely it'll get a prompt hearing, unlike 2015 where decrim didn't get a hearing until April when the session was almost over. General word-on-the-street seems to be that things are looking promising for Texas reducing 1oz or less to a $250 ticket with no criminal penalties this session. Medical marijuana is stickier, not so much because it itself is controversial, but because it has a lot more moving parts so you have to get consensus on a ton of points like what conditions, how many dispensary licenses, how much licenses cost, what kind of medicines will be allowed, etc. Decrim is a much easier "stop arresting, start ticketing" and it's done. Decrim is the immediate focus since it has momentum, but in the next few weeks medical will be getting more focus. Wounded vets and moms with sick kids is a bit dramatic, but it's what people respond to from a gut level. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:On the State level? People can harass their federal reps to do something; the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has been a huge help, so just having Congress put a leash on DOJ/DEA/etc is huge. Users would undoubtedly get away but it would be painfully easy for the Feds to arrest and shutdown recreational marijuana shops, growers and suppliers. No amount of legal muscle would be able to change anything and the industry would disappear overnight. Sessions seems to still have been rather quiet on the subject and given the current administration problems marijuana is low priority. Hopefully it stays that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
A team at Simon Fraser University has worked out that cannabis addled driving increases your risk of having an accident by a whopping 18%. They are also kind enough to point out that driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.05 (the acceptable limit in many places) increases your risk of having accident by a mere 500%-600%. http://drugpolicy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CDPC_Cannabis-and-Driving_Evidence-Review-Full_Jan31-2017_FINAL.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
KingEup posted:A team at Simon Fraser University has worked out that cannabis addled driving increases your risk of having an accident by a whopping 18%. I bet some Kevin Sabet-tier shithead has already used these numbers to argue that weed must stay illegal forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
So I spent part of this week working a NORML/MPP booth in the Austin capitol promoting weed reform. Turns out that our humble little booth managed to royally piss off the Montgomery County DA:https://montgomerycountypolicereporter.com/district-attorney-brett-ligon-issues-response-marijuana-legalization/ posted:Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon Cautions Newly Elected Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg EDIT: as I was leaving the capitol to catch the bus home, the buses were delayed by an anti-deportation march going on. But although my commute was disrupted I did not immediately call for the protestors to be run over with bulldozers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I swore an oath to follow the law – all the laws, as written by the Texas Legislature. I don’t get to pick and choose which laws I enforce Wait, doesn't he realise that you are trying to change the law because not every law ought to be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Who the hell still calls weed dope?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Wait, doesn't he realise that you are trying to change the law because not every law ought to be? Both in DC and here, it's always been baffling hearing people say "but you can't make weed legal, it's *illegal*!" quote:Who the hell still calls weed dope? Canvassing in DC, I hit up an elderly couple coming home from church to ask for their signature. The woman squints at my brochure, then calls out "Henry, these folks are trying to legalize reefer!" EDIT: whacky-tobaccy is polling 59-36 pro in Rhode Island, sounds like time to get off the pot and get on the pot: http://www.weednews.co/rhode-island-polls-looking-positive-for-marijuana-legalization/
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Both in DC and here, it's always been baffling hearing people say "but you can't make weed legal, it's *illegal*!" "Oh yeah? Well skateboards were once illegal and now they're not. It turns out you can make illegal things legal afterall!" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36077122 This is actually I think a major roadblock to reform in my opinion. Lots of people seem to think that there are actually substances that are inherently illegal. They don't seem to realise that substances are illegal only because someone called them illegal at some point. KingEup fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
KingEup posted:"Oh yeah? Well skateboards were once illegal and now they're not. It turns out you can make illegal things legal afterall!" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36077122 It's a joke, but i grew up hearing nothing but the standard DARE line on weed, except for a scoff here and there from my parents who knew better but still didn't want their kid smoking ganja. Reading on my own and learning about Harry J. Anslinger, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, all the propaganda surrounding it, it was a revelation for me. It was like I'd found a secret piece of history no one knew about, and like you point out, i sort of had. I feel like if you can just explain the early history of cannabis prohibition it will fall away for skeptics, but i think i always end up sounding insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
quote:A bipartisan group of federal lawmakers launched the Congressional Cannabis Caucus in a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday afternoon. Republican congressmen Dana Rohrabacher (California) and Don Young (Alaska) joined Democrats Earl Blumenauer (Oregon) and Jared Polis (Colorado) to launch the new group. They are dedicated to developing policy reforms that can bridge the gap that currently exists between federal laws banning marijuana and the laws in an ever-growing number of states that have legalized it for medical or recreational purposes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlDcyB5VCe0
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Who the hell still calls weed dope? Made all the more misleading because Dope is slang for heroin
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Made all the more misleading because Dope is slang for heroin I find it interesting that most pro-weed organizations still use the term "marijuana" just because it's more familiar, while I see more and more that advocates in their own materials favor "cannabis", and Wikipedia sticks with "cannabis" in most articles. But then this new bipartisan "Cannabis Caucus" in the US Congress uses the term "cannabis"; not sure if that's just alliteration or a more deliberate political choice. Going back to the Capitol in Austin this week as part of a Veterans for Cannabis event, should be fun. And The Cannabis covered our event two weeks ago; the first year we had Marijuana Lobbying Day in Austin was 2011, with 25 people, and this year we're up to 375 people: http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/02/17/texas-marijuana-lobby-legislation-legalization/73530/
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Leafly Investigation: California Has a Dirty Cannabis Problem This is a good article to read but I'll give you some highlights quote:Once a hush-hush gathering open only to growers, the Emerald Cup is bigger and more commercial these days. But the marijuana movement’s hippie roots and “organic ethos” are still tangible at the cup. All of the cannabis is supposed to be grown under the sun, not grow lights. One of the Emerald Cup’s judges is an original Haight-Ashbury hippie who dresses in white robes and goes by “Swami.” (This is not an affect; he truly is an initiated swami.) Conversations about veganic and permaculture growing methods abound. quote:In a study published in October, Berkeley-based Steep Hill Labs claimed it found residual pesticides in 84 percent of cannabis tested over a 30-day period beginning in mid-September, the peak time in the state’s marijuana harvest. quote:The potential consequences of contaminated cannabis recently hit home with the release of an article in the journal Clinical Microbiology and Infection. This is specifically for California as Colorado, Oregon and Washington apparently have rules set for testing before legally selling. Stuff like this really makes me worry about the states that legalized it for medical use only - including my own state - as I'd assume they also have looser rules on cannabis testing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:
Well, did either of them sign?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
nawcom posted:Leafly Investigation: California Has a Dirty Cannabis Problem We should have had USP medicinal cannabis products years ago. There are only a handful of medicinal cannabis companies I would trust... and the only three that come to mind are GW Pharma, Bedrocan, Cannimed, none of which are US based. No one with a compromised immune system should be inhaling the bullshit they are selling from the local 'Farmacy'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I find it interesting that most pro-weed organizations still use the term "marijuana" just because it's more familiar, while I see more and more that advocates in their own materials favor "cannabis", and Wikipedia sticks with "cannabis" in most articles. Considering how much 'marijuana' was used as a term to demonize cannabis (by associating it with those shifty mexicans, see), and then its widespread use by programs such as dare and in press releases by law enforcement and various arms of the war against drugs... Well its really not surprising they use Cannabis. Its also the taxonomic name so it gives a bit of formality and academic sobriety to the affair. At least i think thats the intention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 08:24
|
|
