homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » 2016 marijuana initiatives

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: 2016 marijuana initiatives
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since the other election thread is specifically consecrated as Presidential, and since legalizing recreational marijuana could have significant outcomes on a number of levels(general use, drug policy, federalism issues etc), I thought I'd start this thread to keep track of the various ballots, and maybe get some opinions about their prospects, in the lead-in to the vote.

(Possibly NSFW link; double click)

Right now, there are five states voting on legalized recreational weed, three of them(California, Arizona, and Nevada) forming a contiguous geographical block, which, in the event of all three states voting Yes, would border on the existing contiguous geographical block consisting of Washington and Oregon to the north, and slightly touch on legalized-weed Colorado to the east.

Looking at a map, Massachusetts and Maine don't quite meet up, so would not form a contiguous block in the event of both going weed-friendly. But still, a near-block of legalization in the northeast would probably be pretty significant, especially if it's viewed as mirroring what's happening in the west as well.

I believe that both Clinton and Trump have said that they will continue to allow states to legalize as they wish, though I suspect that Donald, if elected, will merely function as a useful-idiot of the Republican establishment, who would likely try to push him in the opposite direction.

From what I've read, the polls in most of these states show a substantial lead for Legalize, but of course, this is the kind of issue where Yes sentiment is pretty heavily concentrated among the young, who tend to stay home. I also wonder if some of the groups the Democrats will likely be mobilizing in larger numbers this time around(eg. Hispanics) tend to be for or against legalization.

[ 07. November 2016, 20:07: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think California will go tomorrow, and I honestly think that will be what brings about the end of Federal prohibition. So far, the industry has been operating in a legally nebulous zone, where the feds won't shut you down, but they also won't allow you to have a bank account, get an SBA loan, file for bankruptcy, etc. etc. If the sixth largest economy in the world joins in, that system becomes untenable. You can either crack down or adjust. And cracking down would be too much trouble, and probably against the public will.

And may I add, good riddance.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3161 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686

 - Posted      Profile for Pangolin Guerre   Email Pangolin Guerre   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
From what I've read, the polls in most of these states show a substantial lead for Legalize, but of course, this is the kind of issue where Yes sentiment is pretty heavily concentrated among the young, who tend to stay home. I also wonder if some of the groups the Democrats will likely be mobilizing in larger numbers this time around(eg. Hispanics) tend to be for or against legalization.

I can't comment on the ethnic component of this issue, but here in Canada, your observation of the relative youth of supporters of legalisation doesn't fully obtain. Over the years there has been a steady decline in the percentage of those under 25 who have smoked weed over the last year. Their attitude seems to be generally libertarian in that regard, even if use is in decline. In the cohorts of 35-50 and 50-65, which are blocs are more likely to get out the vote, there has been a growing acceptance among users and non-users. I have partaking friends in the American jurisdictions you mention, and they're of the older voting demographic.

Here, there is supposed to be a Bill before Parliament (when is a bit of a guess), not subject to a referendum. We already have the medical use of marijuana, and as for recreational use, the most important issues are the legal age of use (The Canadian Medical Association advocates 25), and the means by which it will be sold. The current situation is a bit of a wild west.

Posts: 676 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I can't comment on the ethnic component of this issue
Just for the record, I wasn't trying to single out any particular ethnic group for examination, Hispanics were just an example of a cultural demographic who will probably be more inclined to vote this time around, due to other issues raised by the Trump candidacy. I could also have cited Mormons as a group possibly LESS likely to vote(out of disgust with Trump and hostility towards Hillary), who would be more prohinitionist, and thus impact the outcome by staying away.

quote:
Over the years there has been a steady decline in the percentage of those under 25 who have smoked weed over the last year. Their attitude seems to be generally libertarian in that regard, even if use is in decline.
Yeah, I was referring more to the opinions of the young people, not their habits. I guess I'm surpirsed to hear that use is declining(wonder why that would be), though I think I've heard inklings of that before.

quote:
Here, there is supposed to be a Bill before Parliament (when is a bit of a guess), not subject to a referendum. We already have the medical use of marijuana, and as for recreational use, the most important issues are the legal age of use (The Canadian Medical Association advocates 25), and the means by which it will be sold. The current situation is a bit of a wild west.
With regards to the Liberals legalizing it, I'm still taking an approach of "I'll believe it when I see it". I think there's an assumption afoot that, if the more conservative USA is legalizing, it should be an even easier sell in liberal Canada. But this might be ignoring two factors...

1. American states vote on everything, and state-government don't really have the freedom to ignore ballot results. Whereas a Canadian party breaking an election promise is just another day at the beach in Canadian politics.

2. It's easier for a state to legalize and regulate within its own jurisdiction than it is for a central government in a federalist system to legalize and regulate within its jurisdiction, because you have a whole other level of government to deal with. In Canada, this might mean having to convince ten provinces and three territories that they should sell weed in their liquor outletsif that's the route the government is planning to go).

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The final sentence above, correctly parenthesesed...

In Canada, this might mean having to convince ten provinces and three territories that they should sell weed in their liquor outlets(if that's the route the government is planning to go).

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have no issue with decriminalization. I'd like to see it as a health issue. Not a punishment issue.

As for medical use, no other plant sourced source of chemicals is used in a raw form. If you need your heart arrythmia regulated you take digitalis, you don't get a baggy of dried foxglove.

Personally, I'd like to return to bygone days when a prescription for sherry or whisky was possible. I'd like a prescription for a nice single malt please.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11187 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686

 - Posted      Profile for Pangolin Guerre   Email Pangolin Guerre   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stetson, your point #2 doesn't quite capture the devilish complexity of the question, structurally, in Canada. In typically Canadian fashion, marijuana currently falls under the federal Criminal Code (current rates of prosecution vary considerably from province to province, and within provinces). Approval for medical purposes is also federal. Distribution for medical or recreational purposes is a provincial question. In Toronto and Vancouver, until recently, there were a large number of technically illegal "dispensaries" (the one I visited was rather like visiting an enotica), but there has been a crack down on those. Some provinces' liquor monopolies are looking forward to pushing out the private dispensaries for their own profit, but some provinces no longer have a strict liquor monopoly.

The MP responsible for federal-provincial dialogue on the issue is Bill Blair, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Blair is a former Toronto Chief of Police, and, if memory serves, in that office he was in favour of decriminalisation.

Of course, all of this might be better understand after sparking up a fatty.

Posts: 676 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686

 - Posted      Profile for Pangolin Guerre   Email Pangolin Guerre   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for the double post.

I just forgot to add that I didn't think that you were singling out particular ethnic groups in this. I couldn't comment because the respective ethnic compositions of the US and Canada, especially city by city, are very different.

Posts: 676 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Medical use of marijuana has either just been legalised here, or is about to be. I know that NSW has a committee working out guidelines for practical operation. There are no immediate plans for more generalised legalisation - perhaps the ACT will be the first.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6776 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The OP mentions legalized marijuana, but many more states have some medical marijuana. Still, legalization might help the cause more. (Alas, fully illegal here.)
Posts: 5828 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A long time ago, I voted for California to legalize medical pot. I'm not in favor of drug use, but pot does have some legit medical uses.

This time around, I did vote to legalize recreational pot--purely because I don't think users' lives should be wrecked by a criminal record and possible imprisonment.

But I almost voted "no". I regularly encounter the stink of marijuana on the street--as in, I'm suddenly in the middle of it, and pick up the scent on me. (Caused a situation with a friend, once.) Since I'm not near a medical pot dispensary when this happens, I don't know whether I'm in the wake of a medical pot user, or recreational...which matters because the flood gates may open if the law passes. People won't be allowed to smoke in public, AIUI; but I seriously doubt that will be strictly enforced--or can be.

I've never tried pot. I don't want to smell it any more than I already am. And I sure don't want to breathe it in!!
[Frown]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18178 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pangolin wrote:

quote:
The MP responsible for federal-provincial dialogue on the issue is Bill Blair, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Blair is a former Toronto Chief of Police, and, if memory serves, in that office he was in favour of decriminalisation.

And what I don't get is, if Blair is doing federal-provincial consulting on the issue, what exactly is Anne MacLelland doing in her position? Writing a report on the subject that somehow DOESN'T involve federal-provincial consultation?

[ 08. November 2016, 06:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686

 - Posted      Profile for Pangolin Guerre   Email Pangolin Guerre   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Blair will be the point man in the Commons, as McLellan no longer has a seat. TBH, I'm not clear as to the "division of labour", precisely, but my understanding is that her brief is wide ranging (dealing with various interest groups, experts, etc.), and she will report to Blair. Cabinet can then get its act together, and then go to the provinces (who have no doubt been doing some work on this themselves). I'm willing to be corrected on this.

[ 08. November 2016, 19:34: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]

Posts: 676 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leave it to the Ship to turn a thread on US ballot initiatives into a discussion of the finer points of Canadian politics... [Biased]

I just spoke to a marijuana industry attorney that I share office space with, and she is far less optimistic than I am about California spelling the end of federal regulation. As she put it, getting the feds to renounce marijuana prohibition is like getting the Pope to renounce Jesus.

I'm still hoping. Polls appear to show California and Massachusetts likely legalizing, and Nevada, Arizona, and Maine a close call. She did say that a five state sweep would be a pretty huge deal for the public perception of marijuana as an inevitable thing.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3161 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Og wrote:

quote:
Leave it to the Ship to turn a thread on US ballot initiatives into a discussion of the finer points of Canadian politics... [Biased]
I know your comment is meant in a jocular spirit, but, just as an observation, these state ballots will likely have some reverberations in Canada.

The last time the Liberals were in power, 1990s they mused about legalizing weed, and got a bit of hype in the international press for taking such a bold stand.

When those plans fizzled out, one of the explanations informally bandied about was that the Americans were angry about having legalized marojuana north of the border. I'm not sure how much truth there was to that, or if the Liberals were just using a favorite Canadian scapegoat, but in any case, legalization in Califoria and possibly more states, with whatever attendant attention from Washington DC, would complicate the narrative if Justin Trudeau tries to back off legalization and blame the Yanks again.

[ 08. November 2016, 21:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, it would appear we now have a Reefer Highway. All three West Coast states now have legal recreational.

--------------------
"Take your broken heart, make it into art"-- Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

Posts: 35057 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, it would appear we now have a Reefer Highway. All three West Coast states now have legal recreational.

Congrats! (Depending on your viewpoint)

Though with what's shaping up to be a GOP administration combined with control of the House and Senate, we'll see if that throws a wrench in the works. I'd reckon there are a lot of War On Drugs nostalgists either still kicking around from, or nostalgizing, the 1980s.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, if I'm gonna try it for the very first time, I better get cracking.

--------------------
"Take your broken heart, make it into art"-- Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

Posts: 35057 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The referendum failed in Arizona. [Waterworks]

--------------------
"Stop your noisy songs; I do not want to listen to your praise bands." -- Amos 5:23, Good News Bible (modified)

Posts: 10357 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The referendum failed in Arizona. [Waterworks]

Of the states voting, California, Nevada, and Massachusetts have been confirmed as Yes. Apparently, Maine is still too close to call.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, if I'm gonna try it for the very first time, I better get cracking.

Perhaps so.

Though with this administration, it's kinda hard to know exactly what they're gonna do and not do. If the crackdown goes ahead, I'll chalk it up to another policy that would have been pursued under any Republican administration, not something specific to Trump.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How come things like rules about transgender use of restrooms or common core education are state matters but marijuana use is a federal matter?

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21311 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't a Marijuana Initiative a bit of a contradiction in terms? I mean, doesn't it mellow you out a bit for "dynamic" (how I hate that word in this context" concepts like Initiative.

The only Initiative I'd associate with this particular herbage is rolling to see if you or the orcs attack first.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17721 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
How come things like rules about transgender use of restrooms or common core education are state matters but marijuana use is a federal matter?

Yeah, weird, huh? Sorta like the way the right to own slaves was considered a state matter, but the obligation to send runaway slaves back down south was considered a federal matter.
Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are petitions in California, Oregon, and Washington to exit the USA. Look for Nevada and Colorado to join in if the feds try to enforce federal laws on marijuana.

If they do it will be hard to enforce, IMHO, because all the weed has to be grown within the state where it is being sold. No interstate commerce is being involved. Ergo, no federal jurisdiction.

Look for the ninth circuit of appeals to uphold the states' right to internal commerce. It will go to the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting case.

Posts: 2067 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One Nation, indivisible, erm, sometimes

One Nation, divisible whenever the mood takes

One Nation, indivisible; except when it isn't

[ 24. February 2017, 15:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17128 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, if I'm gonna try it for the very first time, I better get cracking.

Perhaps so.

Though with this administration, it's kinda hard to know exactly what they're gonna do and not do. If the crackdown goes ahead, I'll chalk it up to another policy that would have been pursued under any Republican administration, not something specific to Trump.

I think the decision to step up federal prosecution of marijuana use was made the moment Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was nominated as Attorney General.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
How come things like rules about transgender use of restrooms or common core education are state matters but marijuana use is a federal matter?

Good question. "Why, it’s almost as if “states’ rights” is not a principle!"

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10506 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Technically the right to pee where one wants to pee is a federal issue since public schools rely on federal funding.

However, the Obama administration had told the states as long as the marijuana that is sold in the states does not cross state lines or is sold to minors, they would not intervene.

While Sessions is now revoking that memo, it will still be the basis for court challenges.

Posts: 2067 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gramps wrote:

quote:
However, the Obama administration had told the states as long as the marijuana that is sold in the states does not cross state lines or is sold to minors, they would not intervene.
I'm not a fan of wink-and-nod systems of law non-enforcement(got burned pretty badly once under such a scheme), even when fig-leafed by an executive memo. To some extent, I have to hold the legalizing states at least partly accountable for their possible predicament, because, as far as I know, they didn't do anything to try to effect permanent change to federal law, and instead just relied on the fanciful idea that Obama's blind-eye policy would continue under future Republican admnistrations.

Of course, even if the feds HAD crafted some sort of allowance for states' perogative into the federal statutes, that could still have been undone by less-tolerant legislators in the future. Still might have helped matters to have it a little more entrenched than just a memo.

On another note, I see that the Republicans are using the opioid crisis as their rationale for possibly going after weed. We're really heading back into Nancy Reagan territory here.

[ 24. February 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
However, the Obama administration had told the states as long as the marijuana that is sold in the states does not cross state lines or is sold to minors, they would not intervene.

While Sessions is now revoking that memo, it will still be the basis for court challenges.

Those challenges may be shorter-lived than you think, given that that the Supreme Court has already ruled that Congress can regulate even non-commercial cannabis production that doesn't cross state lines.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10506 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
If they do it will be hard to enforce, IMHO, because all the weed has to be grown within the state where it is being sold. No interstate commerce is being involved. Ergo, no federal jurisdiction.

Look for the ninth circuit of appeals to uphold the states' right to internal commerce. It will go to the Supreme Court. It will be an interesting case.

That case went to the Supreme Court 12 years ago.
Gonzalez v. Raich. The Court found that the interstate commerce power does give Congress the power to regulate a home grow operation, even if nothing is being sent out of state.

(It's an interesting read, and shows how the Supreme Court justices, for the most part, have a little bit more philosophical discipline than the members of Congress. The liberal justices side with federal commerce power, and the conservative justices (with the strange exception of Scalia) side with states rights. The only justice remaining on the bench who sided with the medical marijuana patient? Clarence Thomas.)

Under the Court's Tenth Amendment rulings, the DEA cannot force state or local police to raid grow operations. But the DEA could certainly do it itself if it wanted to. Although they don't have the resources or political will to take out the industry across the states where it is legal, so I have to wonder if they will actually bother?

The main concern here is that this will turn off investors, or otherwise create uncertainty within the market.

If Trump was supposed to be the jobs and money genius, you would have figured that he wouldn't be going around killing an industry that has made billions of dollars in Colorado alone, created thousands of jobs, and caused such a real estate boom that you can't find open warehouse space anywhere in this city for rent. Any bets he would be singing a different tune if Trump had any money on the line himself?

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3161 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Any bets he would be singing a different tune if Trump had any money on the line himself?

I'm surprised no one has tried playing the "patriot" card on him.

"Come on, Don. Ya want 'em buyin' it from Mexico instead?"

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trump Administration Puts Legalized Marijuana In Crosshairs

From The Cannabist, so possibly NSFW(double-linked, and a video-ad starts up at the website). Fairly good overview, that makes the point about how complicated it could be to reverse legalization at this point.

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A bit of a sideline, given the US nature of the thread, but late last week the medicinal use of marijuana became legal throughout Australia. Strict rules and controls, of course.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6776 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Trump Administration Puts Legalized Marijuana In Crosshairs

From The Cannabist, so possibly NSFW(double-linked, and a video-ad starts up at the website). Fairly good overview, that makes the point about how complicated it could be to reverse legalization at this point.

Medical marijuana dispensaries and growers will be targeted before recreational as they are not hidden. Small growers will be targeted before big growers as it is cheaper and safer. All giving lie to the bullshit that is is done for any noble reason.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17128 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sessions Task Force Doesn't Recommend Crackdown On Legal Marijuana
Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools