Colorado measure legalizing marijuana passes
coloradodaily.com
coloradodaily.com
There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the real victory here.
Some folks scoff when they hear a statement like that, but it really is true. Not because it makes it (slightly) harder for me to buy weed in San Francisco, but because of the very real and devastating effects that it has on people outside the US. People who are rarely, if ever, covered by the mainstream media.
Over 4,000 Americans every day are diagnosed with some form of cancer. Meanwhile the government in these situations recommends you heed the advice of your friendly neighborhood big pharma corporation, and heal yourself in a way that makes powerful interest groups millions upon millions of dollars. Otherwise, you might as well just die.
This is about giving people in need a second chance at life, at a price they can afford. In 2012, the only reason you would be against legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes is if you're ignorant, or profiting from it somehow.
Edit: Don't know why this is being downvoted. Medicinal and recreational use are separate issues, with separate arguments for and against each.
To call cannabis prohibition "an attack on science and medicine" is also rather disingenuous. Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1]
Painting the issue as black and white, and conflating arguments for medicinal and recreational use, is not conducive to rational debate.
The line between clinical and recreational is arbitrary and subjective. Even in a recreational setting, people are, in fact, often using drugs to self-medicate. If someone feels perfectly balanced then they will not crave anything. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with self-medicating - personally, I believe that people should be responsible for their own health instead of deferring it to a third party in the first place if they are so capable.
Anyway, nobody should be downvoted for their opinion. This kind of behaviour is endemic in social media sites where there is a voting mechanism. Give people an inch of power and they will take a mile, responsibility be damned.
Many in the pro-legalization camp have been using medicinal cannabis as a kind of trojan horse for full-scale legalization. This is a dangerous, disingenuous strategy, and makes them no better than those on the other side of the fence pushing 'reefer madness' type arguments.
As with all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Other way around actually. Indica strains grow faster and are easier to grow. Most street cannabis strains are hybrid, where they are trying to get the high THC of sativa but with the favorable growing characteristics of indica.
I think the idea more generally (can't remember where I heard this, think it was one of the many documentaries focussing on dispensaries) was just that those growing 'street' weed aim for high THC and don't care all that much about CBD, while those growing it for legitimate medicinal purposes aim for high CBD with as little THC as possible.
People growing weed illegally for commercial purposes usually care more about weight and grow time than anything else. Of the actual breeders and geneticists who create the different strains, there are a variety of different factors that are optimized for. E.g. check out the webpage for apothecary genetics:
http://apothecary-genetics.spruz.com/
Most of the good breeders are in the Netherlands, but they are probably the top ones in the US.
"those growing it for legitimate medicinal purposes aim for high CBD with as little THC as possible."
That's definitely not true. The vast majority of medical marijuana is high THC. While many dispensaries are starting to carry high CBD weed and extracts, they'll usually only have one or at most two strains out of the 20+ they offer. In terms of actual medical use, different cannabinoids have different medical properties. So THC also has many medical uses, it's just not the only cannabinoid with medical uses.
Please do not generalize like this because it's actually harmful to active patients.
no problem, just smoke Kush which seems to be very popular nowadays.
I'm not disputing cannabis has no dangers associated with it, but similar studies that reached that conclusion that I know of always mention that the increased psychosis risks are almost exclusively apparent in people who started using at very young age (up to 16). Similar effects are observed in alcohol use at young age, which is exactly why we have age limits on buying alcohol.
Lot's of other factors can contribute to the development of psychotic symptoms that are not prohibited by law by the way. I know this sounds like the 'broken window' fallacy, but of all the things with possible negative health effects, I think cannabis is really one of the least important ones to worry about.
AFAIK all studies on psychosis and marijuana have been cohort studies, which are essentially useless at determining the direction of causation. While the study you linked attempts to address the possibility of "reverse causality", it only addresses one specific hypothesis (self medication).
Let us repeat this to ourselves until we all remember: You cannot establish direction of causation with a cohort study.
The really interesting part of the history of marijuana prohibition is that it was specifically designed as an attack on industrial hemp, funded in large part by Dow chemical so they could sell their shitty synthetic replacements for hemp products. The word marijuana itself was brought into the English lexicon for the lobbying effort in order to leverage anti-Mexican racism in painting cannabis as a dangerous drug.
I am proud of my state (Colorado) today, which I am sad to say houses an outsized share of this country's huge prison population, for leading the way on this issue.
I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.
Then how did Measure 80 fail in Oregon? :)
I do agree that the general trend toward more states approving medical marijuana suggests that fewer and fewer people are still viewing the drug as evil. If the federal government doesn't interfere with Colorado and Washington, I'm hopeful that marijuana grown in those states will start to replace Mexican marijuana on the black market and weaken the cartels. It's really unconscionable that American politicians are willing to perpetuate the constant state of fear that so many Mexicans are living in now by maintaining marijuana prohibition. What could possibly be worth 12,358 lives in 2011 alone? [1] The knowledge that we're making it harder for our children to obtain a safer alternative to alcohol?
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Drug-War_...
How do they handle Bob, who grows 5 plants for personal use, and shares it with Ann?
In the UK Bob is in considerable trouble, even though he's avoided all the criminal gangs and humanitarian harm caused by prohibition.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/19/british-couple-jailed-fo...
I'm in favour of decriminalisation but what they do with the money is neither here nor there.
I don't think that what they did should be illegal (though I do think it should be regulated), but what happened with the money should be neither here nor there as far as the law is concerned. You don't get to buy favour.
In this case I would argue the sentencing guidelines are too restrictive; although they were given punishments at the lower bound (three years in prison), this was still completely disproportionate to the crime they committed.
The crime they committed was not a violent one, and did not significantly harm anyone. It diverted money away from criminal gangs towards charitable projects. The couple involved were of good character, and did not pose a danger to society by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it's plain to see locking them up for three years is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money.
However, while not breaking down the numbers, it doesn't sound like most of the money went on philanthropic endeavours and I suspect it was a long way short of even a majority of the money (I've read four newspaper accounts now and not one uses "most" to describe the proportion).
In reality of a three year sentence given their prior record, their age and the nature of the crime, they'll likely serve a little over one year and that'll be in a relatively low security prison. As they've likely personally profited to the tune of over £250,000 after their charitable donations that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.
Also worth noting this line form the Telegraph account:
"Mr Foster, 62, admitted regularly selling cannabis in deals of around £1,500 to a local drug dealer to whom he had been introduced through a loan shark."
The point here is that while they're nice, some of the people who they seem engaged with in the wider venture might not be. They're not in this on their own, they're also enabling others. If you deal drugs you probably have other people sell them, you probably get involved in money laundering and all that can lead to a greater criminal enterprise which will have genuine negative effects, even if what you personally do doesn't.
Now you can make a really great case that it's only the illegality that makes that so, and I'm completely on side with that and support it, but while it remains illegal it does mean that it's hard to do the sort of things they do in an entirely innocent way.
I assume they will have had their assets seized as proceeds of crime, so it's not as though they are trading off jail time for profit.
> The point here is that while they're nice, some of the people who they seem engaged with in the wider venture might not be. They're not in this on their own, they're also enabling others.
I wouldn't view it as enabling. If this couple aren't supplying the dealers, someone else will be, and that other person is almost guaranteed to be a nastier individual.
As I say, in a sense this couple were diverting funds away from real, nasty criminal enterprises towards their apparently harmless selves, and the charitable projects they supported.
Donations made from what they make = less profit directly to them. If that then leads to a shorter sentence (or as you're saying no sentence) then how is that not trading off jail time for profit?
The only thing you can say in their favour is that it seems unlikely that they were thinking that cynically when they did it, that the donations were probably genuine rather than an attempt to play the system, but it still sets a very dangerous precedent.
Besides, what about all the money they've already spent which can't be recovered? There really is no argument that they didn't profited from the crime.
Here's the thing, that boat you're talking about? It sailed a long time ago, perhaps half a century ago in fact. Modern law enforcement is all about discretionary enforcement, at every level from the cop on the beat up to prosecutors and judges. We do not live by the rule of law any more, that is a polite fable. We are drowning in laws and their discretionary enforcement shapes our de facto legal and political landscape. Consider the ideal: laws are intuitive and easy (let's settle for possible, even) for everyone to understand and abide by; laws are enforced even-handedly by a police force which serves the public interest; trials are speedy, fair, and performed in a manner which maximizes the exposure of the truth; if insufficient evidence exists the accused are let go, if sufficient proof exists that the accused committed the specific crime then they are found guilty; with the aid of common sense and sound judgment the guilty is kept separated from society for an appropriate period of time to protect society, to punish, and to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation; when the guilty has been rehabilitated and is safe to re-enter society they are released.
Now, compare this to reality. Firstly, it is impossible for any citizen whatsoever to fully understand the laws they are subject to, let alone an average citizen. For example, let's say you are returning from Honduras and you wish to bring back a few lobster tails that you have caught. Does it matter how long the tails are? Does it matter whether or not you put them in a bag or in a box? As it turns out, it does. If you bring back tails that are longer than 5.5" in length and you pack them in a box, you'll probably be fine. If you accidentally have a few shorter tails in the group and if you use a bag to transport them then you could be put in prison for 8 years. This is not hypothetical, this is a thing that happened. Incidentally, 8 years is more time than one would expect to serve for being convicted of sexual battery, for example.
Let's move on, we could spend all day on just that issue alone. Let's look at police and prosecutorial discretion. Because of this massive profusion of laws this, of course, leaves a huge amount of discretion at the hands of agents of the criminal justice system. Consider, for example, the war on drugs and asset forfeiture. Without much due process if an asset (such as a car, a boat, or a house) is used in connection with the manufacture or sale of illicit drugs then that asset can be seized by the police and then sold at auction (or retained for departmental use). This provides an incentive for the police to enforce certain laws more than others because doing so can lead to an increase in the funding for the department. Now let's look at prosecutors. Today trials are not the norm, plea bargains are the norm. It's not what you're guilty of, nor what you can be proven guilty of, it's how much the DA wants to stick it to you, how much they care about prosecuting the general class of crime you are accused of, and how much time and effort they have. Whatever the penalty is on the books for the crime you're accused of is irrelevant, the amount of time you'll actually serve is typically in the hands of the prosecutor and entirely up to whether they want to make a deal. Guilty of rape? Maybe you're a nice guy with a skin tone that stirs feelings of compassion in the DA so he or she will agree that instead of going after you for rape you'll just plead guilty to a far lesser charge like "indecent liberties".
Consider this at a higher level. If you fail to pay your taxes, what happens? Well, you get put in jail of course, or at least heavily fined and punished. Unless you are a candidate for a federal cabinet office, in which case you simply make an excuse, pay your back taxes, and nothing happens. Is this equal justice? No, it is a different standard of legal enforcement based on class and membership in the elite.
Meanwhile, if you do go to court the chances that you'll get a decent attorney who cares about your well being and has enough time to actually work on your case competently is not as high as you'd hope. And the rules for evidence, "scientific" testimony, and witness reports are archaic, convoluted, and based on nothing resembling scientific or rational rigor. Consider that people have been convicted of serious offenses such as rape and murder based on the testimony of a single eye witness. Consider how many people are exonerated and released from prison each year due to the discovery and testing of new evidence or re-examinations of their cases.
Now consider prison. It does little to rehabilitate anyone, at best it is a punishment that the released live in fear of experiencing ever again. Recidivism rates for violent crimes are at about 60% in the US, and for property crimes such as burglary it's even higher. Prison culture is not a healthy culture, and we take the guilty and steep them in that culture for years and then release them back into society. This is madness. People are more likely to develop habits concordant with deviant and unlawful lifestyles, to make connections with criminal networks, and to learn new criminal skills in prison than to learn how to function properly in the peaceful world outside. Worse yet, rape and sexual assault is rampant in our prison systems, and this becomes a trauma that many inmates are forced to deal with and makes it even more difficult for them to integrate into civil society. It also leads them toward the path of self-medicating their emotional and mental pain through the use of drugs and alcohol (and perhaps even adrenaline, through engaging in violent activities and crimes). This does not describe a system that works, it describes a barbaric system that is perhaps just as much responsible for the ills of society as the innate evil that exists in the hearts of some men.
This is the system as it exists today. Everyone is a criminal. Everyone is a felon. Many times over. And our place in society, the perception of our actions by the agents of the criminal justice system, and so forth determines whether or not such omnipresent criminality will be prosecuted to the utmost, negotiated down to a different tier of consequences, or simply ignored.
This is the world we live in, and have for decades. To label it as a police state is not quite apt, but to label it as some sort of monster that is an enemy to the advancement of human civilization would be supremely justified. But it is a monster we are perhaps comfortable with, and a monster that we are so familiar with that we do not even recognize it exists even when it is right there in front of us every hour of every day, we just let our eyes slide right over it and pretend it doesn't exist.
- Frank Zappa
- Joe's Garage Acts II & III liner notes, 1979.
There has actually been a lot of backward momentum in recent years, especially in the West. Californians rejected the full-decriminalization proposition a few years ago. The state is also cracking down on dispensaries, and/or allowing more and more DEA raids against dispensaries and state-sanctioned growers.
On the other side of the pond, even Amsterdam is starting to crack down on cannabis shops and decriminalization statutes.
By all accounts, the measure in CO was an abberration from recent trends. Maybe it will be a tipping point back in the pro-legalization direction. But it represents a shift in the prevailing tides of the last few years.
Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010. The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass. But I would hardly call this "backward momentum." It's not like there was a ton of incentive for Joe Pot to rally behind the move--cheap prescriptions, cheap dispensaries, and cheap penalties is keeping him plenty happy and stocked.
There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam. And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down." Many cities were weary of tourists entering the country simply to get high. So those cities combatted the "anti-social" tourist by requiring marijuana IDs at their coffeeshops. Citizens are free to use, but unless other countries adopt legalization laws in the Euro Zone some Dutch cities feel they must enforce these policies.
Will be interesting to see how Colorado/Washington deal with this, as they will likely encounter the same issue. If I lived in a border city like Vancouver, I'd be prepping for an influx in 2014.
Specifically, the possession of less than 1 oz of marijuana has been decriminalized. Possession of a larger quantity, or sale or intent to distribute, has not been.
"The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass."
Prop 19 was not a full legalization; it was more like a major decriminalization. Possession of up to 1 oz would have been legalized, but many of the "gotcha" side-penalties (employers retain rights to drug screen and consider cannabis in the system a firable offense; legal penalties for possession above 1 oz; etc.) would have remained in place. I think it's fair to say that, had it passed, Prop 19 would have been a really big step toward legalization. But let's not split hairs.
"There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam."
Not only has the sale of marijuana to tourists been outlawed, but "coffee shops" are being forced to reorganize as membership-only clubs, with caps on membership at around 1,000-1,500 per shop. There is also a growing movement, with vocal sponsors in the Dutch parliament, to ban "coffee shops" altogether.
"And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down."
Again, hair spliting over semantics here. The fact is that the Netherlands is moving in a more conservative direction w/r/t marijuana policy. However you want to define "cracking down," the present directionality is from X to Y, where X is a more liberal policy, and Y is a more restrictive policy.
I see your point that policy in the Netherlands is not necessarily germane to policy in the US. I think that's a fair one.
Then how did Prop 19 fail? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inthepeninsula/detail?en...
Unintended regulatory consequences in three, two, one...
Disclosure: I live in Colorado and voted for the amendment.
Deleted comment
And this is just in Mexico.
None of these things are natural consequences of giving money to corporations.
Whereas me opening "Mike's Magic Marijuana Stand" next to the corner deli means I get my shipments via UPS, I pay my taxes, I sell directly to the clients that want it, I don't exploit children and women, I don't involve myself in bribery, I make sure my customers are over 21, I don't smuggle arms to defend my turf, and overall I'm not a blight on the face of the planet.
QED?
1) The tax money does something tangible for my state right here. Whether it's education, tax cuts on other things, or increases in the civic services, I will get a direct benefit from my state government making more money as opposed to the cartel.
2) Is there anyone on earth worse to give money to than the cartels? I guess terrorists, but these guys are killing literally thousands of people. I don't care what moral equivalency you try to make, the fact is they're pulling the trigger and causing many innocent people to die.
Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
Maybe true, but unfortunately there have been instances relating to medicinal usage where local enforcement followed federal instead of their state law.
Deleted comment
Let's keep this going.
And up until very recently he never expressed any interest in marriage equality either. Your point?
2012 Democratic Platform:
"We must help state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement work together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which are blights on our communities. We have increased funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program over the last four years, and we will continue to expand the use of drug courts. We support the rights of victims to be respected, heard, and compensated."
RTFM.
There's the chance that he'd flip-flop again, but don't get your hopes high - he made an active effort to extend Bush's medical marijuana dispensary crackdowns instead of ending them altogether, so there's not really much evidence to suggest that he'll change his mind again.
[1] Compared at least to Bush Jr. and Clinton, which already takes us back 20 years.
Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.
But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self-medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the ability to do better science.)
Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.
It's a risk. Personally, I favour the Norwegian model: tax it highly, put the tax gains into the public health sector. Everybody wins.
Just look at who the world powers were pre-World War, and after.
The idea was to allow Germany and Russia to slug it out, completely exhausting both countries.
See for example the views of Charles Lindbergh (search for Russia) : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html
America's strength is why the USD became the reserve currency of the world. Note that the Bretton Woods conference was held in 1944, before the war ended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
A conspiracy this large would be quite easy to prove. I'm sure you are willing to share all of your evidence without relying on your ipso facto conclusion.
The problem is that these variables are highly confounded - not only is it reasonable, but it is almost expected that a person who is experiencing early signs of schizophrenia (even if they don't realize it) might have their life impacted enough that they turn to alcohol or marijuana (or other drugs) to address those secondary problems, even though schizophrenia would be the underlying root "cause".
The question is not whether that second effect (schizophrenia causing drug use) exists, but the magnitude of that relationship. Which is difficult to measure on a theoretical level, and perhaps impossible to measure on an ethical level.
Read the law.
"presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?"
The feds have said that they aren't going to target individuals who follow state law. As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently left up to each local DA. There are some rough guidelines the feds have put out saying that if you follow certain rules (as a grower or dispensary owner) then you won't be arrested, but it's up to each DA as to whether or not to honor those guidelines.
The federal government has already accepted that marijuana is going to become legal, but they're trying to make it happen in an orderly way. Insiders generally predict federal legalization (or at least rescheduling) in 3-5 years. That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political, economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned.
That's what they've said, but as far as I can tell that isn't how they've behaved. That is, they continue to prosecute individuals who follow state law. They continue to give money to police departments in proportion to the drugs they seize, regardless of whether those drugs were legal under state law. And they continue to launder money for local law enforcement in those states when state law would otherwise prohibit police from keeping assets they seize for their own benefit.
This isn't correct to my knowledge; as an issue of Federal law, that would be the purview of the US Attorney assigned to the region, not the local DA. They get their orders from the US Attorney General.
A local DA could decline to prosecute under state law, but the US Attorney could still pursue federal charges -- this happens fairly regularly (just in general, not even just with regard to drugs or cannabis specifically).
That's what I meant by local.
"They get their orders from the US Attorney General."
Not in this case. The US Attorney General is letting them each do whatever they want as they see fit. That's why there are lots of raids in some parts of California, and almost none in others.
sources?
By this time also:
- There will be a ton more academic research about marijuana
- There will be several FDA approved medicines made from marijuana extracts and specific cannabinoids on the market.
- The price of LEDs will have fallen by 50% as compared with today, meaning that it will be both cheaper to grow marijuana indoors and much harder to detect since thermal imaging cameras will no longer be able to detect rows.
- Solar photovoltaic will also be much less expensive, and this becomes viable for keeping small indoor grows entirely off the grid when combined with LEDs.
- Medical marijuana will be legal in New York state, and probably in 25+ states total.
- Being able to synthetically fabricating new drugs using biotech platforms and 3D printing will be either here already or just over the horizon.
- The baby boomers will be in their 70s and 80s, which is when they will be at their most powerful and active politically, both as voters and also in the house and senate.
There already are a number of FDA approved medicine made from marijuana: Marinol, Cesamet, Sativex. You think we need more?
Marinol's active ingredient is the main cannabinoid in marijuana. You could try arguing (as opponents have) that marijuana has no medical benefit while Marinol does, but it always struck me as bending over backwards to ignore the facts.
> (While this may seem pedantic, it makes a big difference if you're trying to argue for rescheduling in a federal lawsuit.)
Keep in mind that there's already enough to contradict a Schedule I treatment of marijuana (aside from the 25,000+ studies regarding marijuana's medical treatment, there's the government patent on medical uses of marijuana).
It's hard to construct a rational argument in favor of the current laws already, and yet they've still managed to persist.
It's synthetic, not extracted. Again you can't argue that marijuana should be rescheduled because natural cannabis extracts are already FDA approved until Sativex actually gets approval in early 2014. Also, THC is the main psychoactive cannabinoid but not necessarily the main cannabinoid overall.
"You could try arguing (as opponents have) that marijuana has no medical benefit while Marinol does"
You're never going to prevent people from making that argument no matter how dumb it is. We just need to wait for Sativex to get FDA approval so that way they can no longer make it.
Which part of the federal government has accepted that?
Luckily after serving on a grand jury, I know what a PITA is is to bring indictments at the federal level. They will choke on cases if they really try to start prosecuting.
So I guess that means that legal battles over weed will just be over local issues such as regulations and zoning. Before medical marijuana was legal in Colorado I used to see a fair number of advertisements for head shops selling equipment for tobacco. Afterwards, I saw a lot of ads for medical marijuana and some for clinics specializing in treating with medical marijuana. I don't personally smoke weed, but I have had the impression that it was easy to get legally. Now I expect that the legal situation will be complicated to navigate for business owners for awhile. But I think that weed will be even easier to get for the general public, and I don't believe the DEA would go after any customer.
[1] http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I...
Because of the way the laws are structured, it's almost guaranteed that any state law that allows people to grow/sell/use marijuana will violate some portion of some law other than the Controlled Substances Act, which means that the federal government always has an excuse to crack down hard.
Which they have no qualms about doing, apparently.
(That said, this will be interesting because it is a much bolder contradiction of federal law, and it will force the federal government to address it directly, instead of using the tax laws for controlled substances as an excuse for cracking down).
I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be considered 'dispensaries'?
It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp based industry get started up at all.
OTOH, I can accept this as a necessary and temporary compromise to get the decriminalization ball rolling.
I mean, of course it has to be used for something, and most models I hear of have the revenue being used for treatment or medical programs.
I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]
Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]
II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]
A quick example of how the ICC could be applied: If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.
I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
[2]http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-m...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Baffling logic, but I wouldn't be optimistic for the federal authorities to be too foregiving here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It seems obvious to me that the authors of the interstate commerce clause didn't intend it to grant the authority to regulate anything and everything just because an interstate market for it exists, but the courts are generally quite hesitant to invalidate Federal laws.
Practically speaking, most drug enforcement happens at the state level. This means that individual users and small sellers in states that legalized marijuana probably won't have many issues, but you won't see ABC Liquor and Cannabis opening its doors any time soon.
Here in California medical dispensaries are legal under state law, but occasionally (quite often, really) the feds will come in and arrest anyone involved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalizat...
"In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-dri...
That number is meaningless unless we know what counts as "injuries".
Furthermore "drugged driving" is anytime someone is in an accident and blood tests show evidence of Marijuana use, even in cases where the driver was no longer impaired.
>Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.
How often were they testing for Marijuana after car accidents in 1999 compared to 2009, and what level of impairment is the cutoff for a "primary cause."
That statistic is useless without knowing if an increased number of "drugged driving" offenses was offset by a corresponding decreased number of alcohol impaired offenses.
Because of the underlying chemistry involved, most statistics involving marijuana-related incidents vastly overstate instances of drugged driving, use, etc. This includes not just DUIs, but also numbers like the DAWN reports.
Unlike almost any other drug, marijuana stays detectable in the system for 2 weeks on a test (for urine tests, which are the most common - in general, anywhere from 2 days to 3 months, depending on the type of test + usage habits).
Since the effects of the drug only last for ~2-4 hours, that means that "testing positive" for marijuana is useless at indicating whether the person is actually under the influence, or just happened to use the drug at some point within the last two weeks.
Contrast to most drugs - alcohol, for example, can only be detected for about as long as the person is impaired.
> law enforcement puts much of the blame on the
> rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last
> decade
If you're worried about DUIs, then do you want alcohol production/possession criminialized?
This may or may not be a biased experiment, but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU
I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments, but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person?
And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even corporations to get their hands on these records?
This was likely put in the language of the law to emphasize that this is for personal use and not for commercial distribution.
I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.
With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of alcohol addiction, etc...
A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of
the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it?
I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize
it based on whether it is good for this country?
I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.
This is not easy. For example, is it acceptable to decriminalise and prescribe heroin for addicts if the results are (hypothetically): - increase in the number of heroin addicts by 50% due to easier availability - decrease in 95% of deaths due to heroin and heroin-related HIV due to clean needles, known doses, no impurities etc - eliminate 95% of the acquisitive crime by these addicts as nobody steals for a fix any more
I would say yes. But it's a hard sell at the political level, particularly when western society seems to regard addiction as a moral failure and a sin in need of punishment. I find it particularly perverse that when you explain to people that providing a fix and (hopefully) a slow, easy, managed detox program for these people is not only more humane but likely to save insane amounts of tax money AND cut violent crime, some folks are still against it because 'they broke the law!'
2) If the popular and less harmful drugs (weed, E/X , probably a few others like LSD) are legalised and made available then the available customer base and cash for the criminal gangs shrinks massively. Nobody expects them to go home to mommy and start an honest career but if you cut the cashflow, you cut the ability of the gangs to function, and you cut the number of people coming in because it's less attractive.
Surely you can't think that cutting off a lucrative revenue stream from the cartels is a bad thing?
3) Drugs really aren't as dangerous as you've been told. Read a real book on them sometime. I recommend 'Drugs: Without the hot air' by Professor David Nutt, one of the UK's foremost scientists in this area.
I guess no one here watches the TV show "Intervention". Pity. That TV show is a better education on the real impact of hardcore drugs than any book you might read. This Colorado vote is a relatively minor issue, really. But, it does indicate that we're heading down a slippery slope. Since those running the meth clinics say that only one person in 50 can stay clean for a year, there might come a day when half of society are hardcore drug addicts. But, we will never face that kind of zombie apocalypse because the life expectancy for a meth addict is only seven years from the moment they get hooked. Let the down-voting commence!
/facepalm
Where decriminalisation has been a harm-reducing success?
If you start from the worst, something like: "OMG every time you walk in a room with an illegal drug you'll be turning tricks on the street inside of a week", then yeah it seems pretty awful. But if only a minority of people have a problem and accept the risk of being an addict who's to stop them? Being an adult means responsibility.
Where is your evidence to support this? Do you have access to polling that indicates people are really to support legalizing hard drugs?
Due to sleep deprivation, because methamphetamine has a very long half-life in the human body. The government noticed that people were enjoying short-acting stimulants with only moderate harm, so it restricted everything but methamphetamine to increase the harm to punish sin. The meth "epidemic" is a planned social cleansing program. (The government is very much not doing this by accident. They know they won the Battle of Britain because our boys used Dexedrine and could get their eight (hours of sleep) after each mission. The Germans used methamphetamine to the extent they used anything, and we know how that turned out.)
This is a repeat of the mass murder and maiming campaign conducted during alcohol Prohibition. Then the government quietly added methanol to industrial ethanol. Methanol was chosen because it selectively damages certain nerves, leaving drinkers blind, gruesomely brain damaged, or dead if they were lucky. Thousands of Americans had their health destroyed and the central planners considered it a great success.
It would take me 10 minutes to get a bag of meth, yet I'm not addicted to meth. I have smoked weed every day for 3 years while maintaining a high GPA, getting three internships and a full time job.
Intervention is hardly much more "real" than any other reality TV, though I do enjoy watching it.
And I don't know what to tell you if you think prohibition is keeping half the populace off meth. As far as I'm concerned, that can go in the pile with "atheists must be evil since they don't fear God".
If you can't stay away from meth without prohibition, you're not going to stay away from meth with prohibition. If you can't behave properly without a scary Bible, you probably won't behave all that well with it either.
non sequitur. These people are going to be committing crime where ever it is profitable, but you haven't made the argument that more dangerous drugs are highly profitable. the number of customers / demand is much higher for marijuana than any other drugs.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_m...
http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want-ma...
If the law gets rewritten and makes it onto the ballot again in four years then it will pass easily.
Perry Rosenstein++
Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms, libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs, and he's already made it very clear that marijuana is not high (ha) on his list of concerns.
The expansive rulings on the Commerce Clause has opened up the ability of congress to legislate just about anything, provided they can tie it loosely to the act affecting commerce in some minuscule way.
Could you point me to an instance in which the cases you cited were used as precedence in support of federal jurisdiction over controlled substances within state lines? Or did you just want me to be impressed that you can cite Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause?
"Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes."
Not much need for interpretation there.
Which they had no problem doing with the medical marijuana dispensaries in California, despite Obama's own promises that he would end the crackdowns.
> libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs,
Sadly, I don't think either Democrats or Republicans care about libertarians. Look at how the Republicans unabashedly broke their own rules to disenfranchise Ron Paul voters, even though Ron Paul had next to no hopes of winning the nomination.