|
xrunner posted:Having read through this thread, you're a lot more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, but is there a reason you think it's an either/or? I would think given the general inertia at the federal level that scenario two is far more likely to happen as a result of scenario one than it is of occurring on its own. Sure, it's possible that a few token pokes against weed from the feds could result in a bipartisan backlash. That would suck for whoever was made an example of and had to take one for the team, but would ultimately be successful for us. Not to get too Reichstag, but I could almost envision Sessions taking a few swings deliberately the force the moment to a crisis, and then backing down after Congress thumps him. I'd have a grudging respect for Sessions if in his heart of hearts he knows that legalization is inevitable but he's sick of the ridiculous kabuki show we have now where everyone's pretending all the time, and just takes a poke to knock over the tower, and is satisfied that he's done his job once it's no longer a federal offense. Briefly getting back to Texas, there was a lot of buzz at the lobbying event about what Houston is doing. I'd been unaware of this since I've been in and out of the country (and in and out of life) for the past few years, but Harris County apparently has been getting hardcore laissez-faire on weed: quote:In October 2014, Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson announced the First Chance Intervention Program, under which persons possessing two ounces of cannabis or less could be offered a diversionary program of 90 days of community service or drug education, in place of criminal charges and imprisonment. Effective January 2016, the program was expanded to be mandatory for all law enforcement within the county.[11][12] Apparently after Republican AG Anderson started this drug-diversion program, Ogg successfully attacked her from the left, accusing her of taking half-measures to meet a clear public mandate. Ogg beat her out for AG in November, and right from swearing-in has been completely revamping Harris County policy, apparently trying to take weed possession entirely out of the criminal justice system and just do fines and diversion. I dislike Houston on a personal/aesthetic level, but they've had some really progressive random moves in the last few years.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Well, did either of them sign? Oh no, that was a lost cause. Overall in Washington DC I'd say I had 90% generally positive responses while canvassing, and over probably 45+ total days I had maybe a dozen folks actually combative about it. I literally had a couple points where I had to back out of a debate since I was genuinely concerned the other person might punch me. And I had two times (both in Anacostia) where I had to say that my concerns weren't just white-middle-class paranoia, but I was genuinely somewhere where I should not be. The two weirdest points in Anacostia were when I was downtown and saw *zero* white people other than cops, had a bunch of people hit me up to buy them some small thing from the store, and one guy who threatened to beat my rear end because I wouldn't let him "hold" $5. I crossed the street, found friendlier people, mentioned the previous dick and they replied "just stay on this side of the street". The other time in Anacostia I was in some residential areas and doing great, but then crossed into a commercial area within a block radius of a local corner park there were literally 100+ people, mostly men, just sitting on boxes or benches at noon on a weekday and looking pretty down, nodding out, etc. I got a couple "you really shouldn't be here" comments, saw a bus labeled "Anacostia Metro Station" and jumped on. When I just stuck to the subway station in Anacostia, I did great on signatures; pretty secure area, and the weirdness of a white guy in a shirt and tie with Panama hat got people curious. I got just a handful of "why are *you* of all people working Anacostia" but no real problems. On the flip-side, I got bugger-all for support in the Northwest wards (really white and upper-class) and it turned out that our best canvassers there were young African-American men. Apparently when I canvass up there I'm just yet another do-gooder to be handwaved away, but when a young black guy does it and says "people like *me* are going to jail because of people like *you*" everyone is suddenly apologetic and happy to sign and support. Canvassing was a ton of fun, I'd recommend it highly for a cause you care about. I'm broadly enjoying doing volunteer lobbying right now, but it's not as exciting as canvassing. I did three shifts last week at the Austin Capitol and almost every single person who even paused at our booth had positive things to say about the proposed Texas weed reform. If anything, it was a little weird having a bunch of middle-aged people dropping by to say "I just love Colorado's new laws every time I visit *wink*!" or "my family member gets a lot of relief from X cannabis medication, so fuckit, we just drive to Colorado every few months and stock up, I'm not going to follow a law if it hurts my family."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings, but I think ultimately this will turn out well for weed in the long run no matter which way it breaks. I don't want to do the whole "heh I'm a white male and unlikely to be inconvenienced so ACCELERATIONISM" but if Trump starts picking a fight over weed I think it's really going to bite the Republicans in the rear end, cause internal party discord, and just maybe give the Dems enough balls to step up and actually take a stance. There's a spectrum of options here really, and at this point we're all just speculating: -- Administration floats a "gently caress weed" balloon, goes over poorly, pulls it back and tries to sort out the fed-state issue by devolving more power to the states (wildly optimistic best-case scenario) -- Administration just dicks around making vague statements about "eventually, we might crack down or something sometime". It could have a chilling effect on expanding or opening weed businesses, investors may get skittish (they should always be skittish anyway in that field). But the hanging sword should keep people energized to keep moving weed forward, scream at their elected reps, and generally just keep folks from getting complacent until the situation stabilizes somehow. -- Administration does some targeted enforcement, closes a few recreational dispensaries, arrests a few folks. This could end up effectively being just an expanded version of #2 with no real practical fallout (other than the unlucky folks "made an example of") but lots of ticked-off people. Seriously, 8 states worth of congresspeople hollering about how this fucks with their budgets, billion-dollar businesses in multiple states realizing "if you don't get seriously politically active, your investment will tank", etc. -- Administration declares a full-on War on (Recreational) Weed (I'd find it almost unfathomable if they tried to seriously crack down on MMJ), busts a bunch of businesses, maybe arrests some random customers, kicks off a huge kerfuffle that gets them attacks from a dozen possible political angles (killing jobs, wasting DOJ money, etc), and results in absolute disaster. And maybe I'm unduly optimistic, but I really do wonder if they start smacking down states, filing injunctions against governors who legalize, if you'll just get a bunch of governors going "fine, gently caress you, weed possession in my state is now a $15 ticket for a quarter-pound or less, and a lower police priority than jaywalking, and anything the black market does bad we're just going to point at the Feds and say 'these fuckers won't let us have a regulated market'." I think #2 is most likely, but in whatever scenario, I don't seen Trump winning a whole ton of points off this issue, and causing some serious consternation even among Republicans, and likely just pushing public polling for legal weed even higher than the 59% nationwide or whatever it's at. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
A reminder that SAM is freaking terrible, and as skilled concern-trolls and the media's go-to "gotta interview both sides" option, one of our more dangerous opponents:quote:Reaction to Spicer’s comments was swift Thursday night.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Full-legal is looking to be a tough sell in Connecticut this year, but they're proposing a number of interesting partial measures:http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Marijuana-appears-to-be-tough-sell-in-Legislature-10958065.php posted:Marijuana appears to be tough sell in Legislature
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Georgia has bills in progress to expand their MMJ program, and change possession of two ounces or less from a *felony* to a misdemeanor, which is mindblowing given that even Texas is looking to move minor possession to a civil fine: http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/02/28/georgia-marijuana-possession-misdemeanor-medical-conditions/74515/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:It sucks that even if that passes congress it has to get by trump With all due awareness of "LOL nothing matters", this doesn't seem to be anything that Trump has a big personal stake in, vetoing it would be pretty contentious and risk undermining a portion of his base, etc. On a more cynical level, if handed to him on a silver platter I think he'd *love* to be able to crow that only he could finally end the Drug War, resolve the disparities between state and federal laws, etc. It would take very little effort for him to spin this as a huge *personal* accomplishment even if all he does is sign off on it. Again this is Trump and who knows, but I honestly think he would take a further hit to his popularity if Sessions gets even slightly aggressive on weed as is being threatened. There's plenty of right-wingers, alt-right kids, old folks, rurals, etc. who are vaguely positive about weed, increasingly so every year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah the number of people in prison for simple marijuana possession is like, a very low percentage and legalization will do very little to address the mass incarceration problem. I mean, if you're intentionally conflating marijuana possession and cross-border cocaine trafficking or whatever, okay, but that's not really relevant here. People who have a misdemeanor conviction for weed possession, even if they did no hard time, have their job and life prospects curtailed and have less incentive to not get involved in other crimes. Giving them a ticket instead just means they're annoyed and out a couple hundred bucks, but don't spend the rest of their life labeled a criminal. "Guys, but almost nobody is in jail just for weed!" is one of those SAM red herrings to avoid discussing how marijuana charges negatively impact peoples' lives and careers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
quote:And not being allowed to own a gun isn't a problem in the first place. Says you; lots of folks would disagree. I went to check out SA's favorite bastion of cranky conservative, Free Republic, and they're split pretty much down the middle re Session's threats. You have about half of them doing the "good, pot makes people stupid liberals" or "you can't pick-and-choose what laws you enforce", but a bunch saying it's Big Government overreach, an offense against states rights, or just plain dumb and a waste of time and political capital: http://freerepublic.com/tag/marijuana/index?tab=articles One argument that I've seen pop up on Freep a lot, and in real-life conversations, is people arguing "most alcohol users drink very moderately, but *every* pot user is just looking to get high as a kite, every single time". I don't know if that's just a Hollywood portrayal, or some confirmation bias where they ignore the dozens of people they know who have an occasional joint and just envision their one burnout friend doing massive bong-rips on his couch all day. When I think of "daily marijuana user" I think of people who pinch off a joint so they can come back and smoke the rest a few hours later (something I almost never see cigarette smokers do), and pretty much every time I've seen someone get totally stumbling-baked is someone who's already ensconced at someone's house for the night and has no need to by going anywhere or do anything important anytime soon. As opposed to alcohol where I've seen deadbeats drink on the corner until they vomit, and have seen plenty of even respectable employed folks stumbling around in broad daylight on a non-work day (DC loves brunch), much less on a Friday night downtown. EDIT: here's a Freep example: quote:Alcohol is easily abused and a lot of people do get sh!+ faced drunk every day. But that is a tiny minority compared to the millions that may have an occasional drink weekly or even daily. Have a few and then they stop. Most just want to take the edge off. Getting sh!+ faced has not happened to them since college. Alcohol is a drug that can be used responsibly. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
KingEup posted:What's moderate drinking, one or two standard drinks? As a teetotaller one standard drink would definitely put me in a drug affected state. I suspect the people claiming that not all drinkers drink to get drunk already have a tolerance and just don't realise. Why they believe that regular cannabis users don't develop a tolerance is beyond me. I've seen folks like this literally insist that "a couple drinks" has zero psychoactive effect, while still using phrases like "to wind down", "to take the edge off" that pretty clearly point to achieving a desired drug effect. Dude, if it had "zero" effect they'd be drinking apple juice, clearly alcohol in any appreciable quantity has some effect. I would imagine their viewpoint is affiliated with the argument "I'm not vomiting or making GBS threads myself and can generally stand erect, I must be totally fine to drive home!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
What a day! In the morning I read that the Sessions DOJ is sending threatening letters to the Cannabis Cup about their upcoming NV event, and then this evening I read that Sessions may have committed perjury at his confirmation hearing. Strange times.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Continuing to work the cannabis lobbying issue in Austin, though I'm planning to leave TX (at least for now) at the end of the month. There's at least some chance of reform to Texas' very limited MMJ program this session, but probably a better chance that possession will be lowered to a civil fine for an ounce or less. Similar good news in New Mexico, where there's legislation proposed to lower possession of a half-ounce or less from a jailable misdemeanor down to a $50 fine: http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/03/03/south-dakota-cbd-oil-fda-approval/74832/ And meanwhile I'm still just waiting for Rhode Island to just legalize it already, they're edging worse than Vermont the last few years. EDIT: and South Dakota is trying to pass a bill that would legalize CBD as long as the FDA regulates the product: http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/03/03/south-dakota-cbd-oil-fda-approval/74832/ TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Israel's Cabinet voted today to decriminalize public personal possession/use of cannabis, with only civil fines unless you commit a fourth repeated offense. Still needs to be signed off on in the Knesset to become official: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/world/middleeast/israel-marijuana-benjamin-netanyahu.html?_r=0 EDIT: West Virginia is, yet again, pushing for Medical cannabis, I think they've tried this every single year since 2010, let's see if it happens this time: http://www.journal-news.net/news/local-news/2017/03/medical-marijuana-proposed-for-state/ EDIT2: and Connecticut has multiple legalization bills bouncing around its legislature this year, including one sponsored by the senior Republican on Appropriations. Seriously, it's like loosening weed laws is just popping up constantly in every state and dozens of countries. I follow this poo poo as a hobby and I'm having a hard time keeping up even on just a perusal level: http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20170305/connecticut-lawmakers-to-hear-testimony-on-marijuana-legalization-bill TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Just a fun-fact I learned about Idaho today. I mentioned earlier in the thread that Idaho approved CBD-only in 2015 but Gov. Butch Otter vetoed it. Well, turns out that in 2013 the Idaho Legislature, both houses, took the time to pass a resolution saying "we will never legalize marijuana in Idaho". There wasn't even any push for a bill ongoing, they just preemptively out of the blue decided to announce to the state that they wouldn't ever legalize. Fun state. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/idaho-anti-marijuana-resolution_n_2766943.html EDIT2: the nominated incoming chief medical officer for Nebraska opposed allowing CBD oil because it has a "high potential for abuse": http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/03/07/nebraska-medical-marijuana-advocates-oppose-chief-medical-officer/75079/ EDIT: In better news, Ireland's MMJ program is being fast-tracked and could be operational as early as this autumn: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medicinal-cannabis-programme-may-be-in-place-by-autumn-1.3001574 TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
This is bizarre: I went to check to see if VT is getting any closer to legalizing finally, and apparently they're seriously considering a DC-style "legal but no sales" legislation where they'd allow home-growing but no stores. DC got stuck with that by Congress, but VT wants to actually make it a plan. Weird strategy, but apparently it placates some conservatives who don't want to see a "pot industry" or worry the Feds will crack down, so just going laissez-faire is easier. http://www.weednews.co/vermont-house-leaders-say-they-will-move-forward-with-marijuana-legalization-bill/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
xrunner posted:That is interesting. I could see that being a fairly viable strategy in states where "great source of revenue for the state" is less appealing as an argument than "my property rights." NH, for sure, but maybe even places like Montana or Wyoming. It's a really intriguing option, it's technically "legalization" but resembles "hyper-decriminalization" or something. Wikipedia might need to start nuancing their map further if this catches on as a thing in other states. DC again just has this system totally unwillingly, seeing someone actively *choose* it is odd. But I grasp how it's a middle-ground that might gain some support. If I were snarkier I'd be pinging Smart Approaches to Marijuana on Twitter to ask "hey, since you guys are supposedly fine with adults using cannabis, but are against Big Marijuana, does that mean you endorse the VT proposal?" Pragmatically I think it's kind of silly since it leaves open a huge black market and the state gets no revenue from it, but if somehow people are convinced that commercial cannabis is somehow a bad deal, this is still an improvement over the status quo. I joked last year about how when Maine was demanding a "locally appropriate" solution that they must be demanding that weed only be sold in cute little mom-and-pop corner drugstores that sell penny-candy at the counter, but Vermont appears to be doing some no poo poo "the right Yankee way is for government to butt out and the hardy yeomen farmer to grow and smoke his own hemp." EDIT: Ah, apparently SAM's current fight is trying to prevent RI from legalizing through their legislature: EDIT3: SAM is the one bankrolling this specific ad, but doesn't mention that on their Twitter or on the ad itself. They did similar tone-deaf astro-turfing in DC.  EDIT2: Ah, the good ol' "parade of horribles". quote:PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- North Kingstown Town Council President Richard Welch worries that if marijuana is legalized the town could have issues with policemen and firemen coming to work high. EDIT4: quote:That is interesting. I could see that being a fairly viable strategy in states where "great source of revenue for the state" is less appealing as an argument than "my property rights." NH, for sure, but maybe even places like Montana or Wyoming. Montana tried this with guns back in like 2010 or so: they tried passing some law that Montanans could make full-auto machineguns, sawed-offs, and silencers without doing any federal paperwork so long as the firearm always stayed in Montana. And of course ATF was "lol no". TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
I'm a little hazy on the details, but apparently Scott Pruitt, the guy Trump tapped to head the EPA, was the same guy who as AG of Oklahoma dicked up their public initiative to legalize medical marijuana in 2016. They had the signatures, but then backers allege Pruitt misleadingly structured the phrasing of the initiative to make it sound like people were voting on full-legal, so courtroom kerfuffles followed and the vote looks like it's on for 2018 now. So by at least one argument, the current EPA chief is the big reason Oklahoma has to wait two more years to vote on medical weed: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pruitt-confirmation-adds-another-strong-anti-marijuana-voice-to-trump-cabinet/article/2615318
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Went to a hearing last evening for Marihuana Decriminalization in Texas. Turns out hearings take forever so I spent several hours in the overflow room bullshitting with other activists or playing World of Tanks on my phone while waiting for our bill to come up. There were some other interesting bills before ours, a bunch of stuff about human trafficking and prostitution and expunging records and all, so I watched some of the testimonies for the intense stuff like "I'm now a productive tax-paying citizen, mother, and homeowner, but I've been literally laughed at in job interviews because I have prostitution convictions from twenty years ago because my abusive boyfriend got me hooked on heroin and selling myself to support him." After about four hours of hearings, our bill came up around 6pm or so and we filed in. They have tablets set up outside so you can log yourself in to support/oppose given bills, and sign up to testify or no. The campaign put out word in advance that we had plenty of witnesses, so only testify if you have personal or professional experience with cannabis arrests. Testimony was... a mixed bag, which I guess is what happens when you just open the floor to anyone. A lot of people who didn't have much angle other than "it really sucks my son got busted for weed"; I'm supportive of their cause of course, but for each testimony I just tried to imagine how it would resonate with someone who'd just respond "then don't break the law." Then a lot of folks who got really off-topic about how great weed is medically, but didn't use the angle I would have of "so even if it's not legal to self-medicate, at least people who make that tough decision will get ticketed but not arrested." We had one really interesting dude who sounded somewhere between Sam Elliott and Johnny Cash, like the guy should be doing narration for something folksy, and his how spiel was this rambling piece about how the Vietnam War was specifically designed to kill off hippies, and paraquat spraying in Mexico was done to poison weed smokers rather than kill crops. Basically every point he had dated back to the 1970s at latest, and not a single point addressed House Bill 81 other than saying he supported it. We had at least a couple people though who were reasonably on-point with basically classic stories for our case. One local businessman (who brought his wife and baby to the hearing) who got busted in a rural county for a few grams of medical marijuana (that he'd been legally using in another state) and was horrified that he got literally shackled hand and foot, spent several days in jail, and had to go to court to fight off a misdemeanor charge that could've hurt his business. That was probably our best one for "respectable citizen is treated like a dangerous criminal for a minor offense." For a while it looked like we had an endless parade of a couple dozen supporters testifying and no opposition, though a couple older folks had punched their data into the tablet wrong and gone on-record as being against it, so had to verbally correct the record to testify. But the last speaker of the night was a prosecutor from a rural county, who said that his people didn't object to the overall concept of the bill, but were against it because of two major concerns: a) what if some court says the smell of weed is no longer Probable Cause and they lose to ability to search people to check for real crimes? b) it's tough on cops to have to enforce *civil* law on top of criminal law, and what if the weed is like right at an ounce but the cop isn't sure if it's over an ounce and arrestable? Fortunately the writer of the bill, who's on the committee, was also a prosecutor and (politely) tore the guy's arguments apart. At the very end, the Chairman noted that we'd spent almost four hours hearing testimony, with a total of one single person testifying against, and basically gave a scolding speech about "for the record, if there are folks out there that aren't happy about this bill, I'm not going to be pleased if you show up in April or May complaining about it on the floor, since we had a whole hearing for this and almost everyone that showed up supported it." So overall we're feeling really good about this getting out of committee, which was almost a foregone conclusion since even going in we were pretty sure we had four solid votes of eight to move forward, so now we just see when it goes to the House floor, and where the Senate companion bill is at. And separately a bill to expand Texas' MMJ program to be as large as in a normal state (right now it's just CBD for epilepsy) is winding its way through the system. It's been pretty cool getting involved in this, so if you've never attended a NORML meeting for your area, or aren't on their mailing list, try getting involved even if it just means coming out for a day to lobby, or responding to a call for action by contacting your reps.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:FYI the representative giving the speech you talk about was actually Vice Chairman Todd Hunter. This is important because Todd Hunter also happens to be Chairman of the House Calendars Committee, who sets when (or if) bills go to the House floor for votes. Previous similar bills have passed the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee unanimously, only to never reach the floor due to a lack of support from Calendar Committee members. So his support would be a Big Deal in terms of actually getting legislation passed. Thanks for the local insight! I move around too much so I tend to lack the bigger political picture wherever I'm operating. Did you attend the hearing too, or saw it streamed? Would you also concur that a lot of the testimony was less than compelling, but was useful mainly for showing that a body of people are willing to turn out in support? Speaking of which, other than personal testimony, we had a bunch of folks come to testify in favor from Republican organizations, particularly Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition and The Young Republicans, so that was useful for bipartisanship. Those speakers were mostly pretty dry, just recited statistics and explained how that fit into Republican ideology. To nitpick from the outside, I wish people would pay more attention to the prior speakers and modify their speech accordingly since we had more than half the speakers rattle off the same statistical bullet points. A certain amount of repetition is good I suppose, but after four or five people saying "60,000 marijuana arrests per year" it seems we could save a few minutes by just saying "the other speakers have pointed out the sheer number of arrests, and based on that..." Now it's just a matter of when it gets on calendar to go to the House floor, and then where the accompanying Senate bill is, and then what happens to both the HB and SB for expanding medical cannabis. I found it interesting too that the campaign is no longer doing mass calls for action because a chunk of reps are really solidly on our side now and have apparently communicated "yes, after the literally thousandth email about this, I'm totally on-board, so you don't need to tie up my inbox and phoneline." So presumably they're focusing more now on getting people in key districts to contact their reps who are on the fence. Lots of interesting strategy in this that's way above my level.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Canada just announced that July 2018 is the goal to legalize recreational cannabis in Canada. It'll be age 18 and up, and individual provinces will set their own policies for stores and whatnot: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/27/canada-legal-marijuana-july-2018
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
On the road and phone-posting, but it appears big news in West Virginia and South Africa this week if anyone has a sec to dig.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Crossposting from TCC: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3817105 quote:Slacktivism call: I imagine WPCannabis would appreciate your efforts appreciated to spread the word/link about this project on Twitter, Facebook, etc. to the cannabis community
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
A day early, but on 19 April, West Virginia became the 29th state to legalize medical marijuana. So now there are only four US states and two territories that have zero form of legal, decrim, or CBD: http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/04/19/west-virginia-medical-marijuana-legal/77790/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Seven weed activists arrested by Capitol Police (not MPD, cops for the actual Capitol building) in DC for handing out free joints: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/20/420-dc-pot-activists-arrested-during-free-marijuan/ They'll be held overnight and have a hearing tomorrow. Unsurprisingly, one of them is Adam Eidinger (famously described as a "political gadfly" by the Post), the headshop owner who headed the successful campaign to legalize weed in DC in 2014. That said, Capitol Police are federal and not beholden to DC law; this could get interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Stolen from the poltoons thread:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Governor hasn't signed yet, but Indiana is on the verge of legalizing CBD for epilepsy: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/21/marijuana-extract-could-soon-legal-indiana-epilepsy-patients/100698120/ EDIT: if IN does it, that brings us down to only three states (ID, SD, KS) that have neither decrim nor medical. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
I'm in Montreal for a few months, and been pondering volunteer gigs to keep busy. In DC and Texans I worked on marijuana campaigns, but I dunno, are MJ advocacy groups in Canada doing anything at all these days other than an extended touchdown dance for the next year?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i imagine they're probably tokin up Nah, I mean what are they doing *different* since the Canadian government announced upcoming legalization? Not that it seems to matter much, Montreal reeks of weed about as much as DC does. EDIT: apparently one of Canada's ongoing challenges is reminding people "hey, you can *still* get arrested until next year so be more discreet." TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Apr 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:Rohrabacher-Blumenauer (formerly Rohrabacher-Farr) in the spending deal, extended to Sept. Suck it Sessions!
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 18:41
|
|