Marijuana legalization won in Alaska, DC, and Oregon

[talisman]

Well said.

Those blanket statements that get thrown out in these forums sometimes are the bomb, aren't they?

Absolutely!

[Sleeper]

Absolutely!

Fucking stoners.

In the next 5 years we will see a huge bump in the amount of states that get on the wagon. Its to big of a topic now and i cant wait to see a 3 year trend on what the states get off the taxes and such.

Everyone will want in when they see all the money they are missing out on imho.

[talisman]

Fucking stoners.

In the next 5 years we will see a huge bump in the amount of states that get on the wagon. Its to big of a topic now and i cant wait to see a 3 year trend on what the states get off the taxes and such.

Everyone will want in when they see all the money they are missing out on imho.

The taxes are what will end up getting it done I would imagine. Big Pharm will fight it every step of the way though. I find it highly interesting they are one of the top lobbies against legalization, despite all the well documented therapeutic potential of cannabis. I wonder why that is?

[DON SVO]

The taxes are what will end up getting it done I would imagine. Big Pharm will fight it every step of the way though. I find it highly interesting they are one of the top lobbies against legalization, despite all the well documented therapeutic potential of cannabis. I wonder why that is?

I'll give you something of a nasty twist: what if cannabis was legalized per medicinal guidelines (unlike alcohol or tobacco) nationwide. However, as per this legalization, it was regulated entirely by the FDA and DEA like any other prescription. With this in place, certain big pharma companies would be able to lobby for certain restrictions on the dispensation and quality control of the legalized products in the same vein as any other prescription medication... A script from a doctor for a certain potency, a certain quantity etc. that then has to be filled by a legitimate pharmacy. Not a head shop.

Would we be all for it then? It's legal to obtain and consume for medicinal purposes but then gets held to the same standards as other Class i drugs (possession without prescription)? That's a slippery slope that could make simple possession a much more formidable offense.

[talisman]

I'll give you something of a nasty twist: what if cannabis was legalized per medicinal guidelines (unlike alcohol or tobacco) nationwide. However, as per this legalization, it was regulated entirely by the FDA and DEA like any other prescription. With this in place, certain big pharma companies would be able to lobby for certain restrictions on the dispensation and quality control of the legalized products in the same vein as any other prescription medication... A script from a doctor for a certain potency, a certain quantity etc. that then has to be filled by a legitimate pharmacy. Not a head shop.

Would we be all for it then? It's legal to obtain and consume for medicinal purposes but then gets held to the same standards as other Class i drugs (possession without prescription)? That's a slippery slope that could make simple possession a much more formidable offense.

The DEA needs to be defunded and eliminated altogether. I strongly contend that the Federal Government telling them to back the fuck up on harassing "legal" pot dealers directly led to them shifting their focus to prescription pain medications. Because "more" regulations is exactly what people who are in chronic pain need to contend with. Those nitwits are in full on job retainment mode, creating mountains out of molehills trying to keep their paychecks rolling in.

[talisman]

Interesting article.


Will shifting national debate on pot translate into Texas legislation in 2015?
For the most part, the Texas Legislature typically doesn't care much what happens in other states. But legalizing recreational marijuana use in Colorado and Washington definitely changed the terms of debate. And this election cycle, despite a GOP sweep in competitive House and Senate races, two more states and the District of Columbia joined the list of jurisdictions approving recreational use. From Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy:
The 2014 election was a successful for marijuana legalization. Referendum initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana passed in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. Florida’s legalization amendment (which was limited to medical marijuana) failed, but only because victory required a 60% supermajority (it got 57% percent). A medical marijuana initiative did pass in the Pacific island territory of Guam.

Coming on the heels of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington in 2012, this is a further sign of pro-legalization momentum, and perhaps of dissatisfaction with the War on Drugs more generally – even among some conservatives.

Nationally, some pot-legalization strategists discouraged ballot initiatives on the topic in 2014, fearing the sort of red-voter swamping of the electorate that did indeed occur yesterday. 2016 is supposed to be the real tipping point with several states including California in play, according to the national groups' playbook; this year was too risky. But such fears didn't come to fruition in Oregon, Alaska, or D.C., where recreational use will soon be legal.

Sometimes experts can outsmart themselves. In my experience, ideological conservatives aren't a barrier to drug policy reform, or shouldn't be. Indeed, pitched correctly, small government conservatives are natural allies for those who want to treat drug abuse as a medical problem instead of a criminal one and reduce the footprint of the justice system.

Texas doesn't have initiative and referendum; any reform legislation here must pass both chambers at the Legislature and be signed by Greg Abbott. So change here can't happen on the Colorado, Washington, or Oregon model; it can't happen at the ballot box. Instead, incrementalism is the order of the day.

Grits continues to believe that, while the Texas Legislature will not outright legalize pot in 2015, important constituencies now support (or at least don't strongly oppose) reducing penalties for low-level pot possession from a Class B to a Class C misdemeanor - the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of such a policy would be county governments which don't want to raise taxes to pay for jail space and attorneys for indigent pot smokers and covet a new Class C revenue stream. (Some of those same constituencies, it should be added, also support reducing all charges for driving with an invalid license from a B to a C - the Driver Responsibility surcharge has made the numbers overwhelming.)

There has been talk of making low-level pot possession a civil violation instead of a criminal penalty. But it's unclear to me how that would work under Texas' legal framework, which couches all sorts of regulations as criminal offenses that would be civil violations in other states (for example, that's how we get 11 felonies involving oysters). Maybe they can figure out an angle but it's hard to see how they shoehorn it in with existing enforcement mechanisms. The only civil-penalty equivalent I can think of are red-light camera tickets and they have all sorts of enforcement problems.

Either way, there's a coalition to be had on reducing marijuana penalties between local tax hawks, small-government conservatives and anti-drug war liberals that could potentially pass a bill which reduced arrests, jail time, indigent defense costs, and provided real, county-level property tax relief. And the large number of new faces in both chambers provides opportunities for new conversations and perhaps even new coalitions over the next session or two.

I'd be surprised if a bill to "legalize" pot even gets a hearing in 2015. Legislation to ratchet down penalties for low-level possession, on the other hand, conceivably could pass if the leadership would let members vote on it.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2014/11/will-shifting-national-debate-on-pot.html?spref=tw

[lincolnboy]

I cant be having these legal here . Be making caking to many

[talisman]

I cant be having these legal here . Be making caking to many

See, there is also plenty of natural deterrent to not smoke yourself completely retarded to anyone who observes the world they live in...

[lincolnboy]

See, there is also plenty of natural deterrent to not smoke yourself completely retarded to anyone who observes the world they live in...

So what do you do all day?

[Chili]

So what do you do all day?

What does that have to do with the price of weed in china-town?

[jyro]

How the IRS and Congress cripple the marijuana industry with an obscure, decades-old law
don't look for Stock in weed to rise--

A federal tax code amendment passed in 1982 called Section 280E specifically denies tax credits or exemptions to businesses “trafficking” in controlled substances — so the nascent industry taking its first wobbly steps in Colorado and Washington is getting hammered, with some pot outfits forking over as much as 90 percent of their revenue in federal taxes,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...cades-old-law/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...cades-old-law/

[idrivea4banger]

I'm starting to get hungry.....

[GeorgeG.]

Here, let me explain it to you so you understand. I'm currently on 3 different medications, costing me hundreds of dollars a month, that I have to see a doctor every 3 months to get(more $$$), and now I also get to drive to their office every single month for one of the prescriptions, because the DEA decided to reclassify it. These meds are a big danger to my renal system, even moreso since I've only got one kidney. I am in constant, chronic, never ending pain, that the meds give me maybe a 3 hour respite from a day.

From what I've read, edibles are a huge pain killer. I don't care about the "head" high, and frankly don't care for it much at all since the novelty wore off a long long time ago. Your on the whim estimation of the "majority of pot smokers" is based off of nothing more than something you pulled out of your ass. "I'm not personally interested in it, so I'll just disparage an entire formidable political movement and dismiss it to show how awesome I am" is how that post reads. Don't like pot? Don't use it. I for one would like to be able to go to a store and experiment with a medication that I can personally regulate, that is cheaper, and that won't fuck up my internal organs.

Everyone is just a lazy pothead though! Are you one of those guys that looks down on everything outside the vision of your personal interests? Because you should probably work on that a bit.

Well, I should've been a little more specific. I don't have a problem legalizing weed for medical research and using it for true medical purposes. I also don't have a problem with it if it's taxed as heavily as cigs.

I've seen a few documentaries where people have moved to Colorado/Cali in order for them to get the "oil" (don't know the technical term) so they can treat certain ailments....and according to the documentary, it was working. But IIRC, you can't get that same amount of oil by smoking it... you have to have a much larger quantity to process and extract the cannabis oil and I don't think the majority of smokers are going to do that. I could be off a little off base on this since I'm not an expert in this field.

SO...if "legalizing" it means to the extent of being able to get the oil from a supplier, then I'm all for it. But if the big fuss is so that Joe Blow can go to a "store" and buy it just to smoke it....I think we have more pressing issues to deal with that satisfying a true pot head.

[Cooter]

I think we have more pressing issues than waging "war" on and imprisoning people for consuming a harmless plant...

follow the fucking money... WHY is this plant illegal? it is fucking HARMLESS to anything/everything except those in power

[bcoop]

Well, I should've been a little more specific. I don't have a problem legalizing weed for medical research and using it for true medical purposes. I also don't have a problem with it if it's taxed as heavily as cigs.

I've seen a few documentaries where people have moved to Colorado/Cali in order for them to get the "oil" (don't know the technical term) so they can treat certain ailments....and according to the documentary, it was working. But IIRC, you can't get that same amount of oil by smoking it... you have to have a much larger quantity to process and extract the cannabis oil and I don't think the majority of smokers are going to do that. I could be off a little off base on this since I'm not an expert in this field.

SO...if "legalizing" it means to the extent of being able to get the oil from a supplier, then I'm all for it. But if the big fuss is so that Joe Blow can go to a "store" and buy it just to smoke it....I think we have more pressing issues to deal with that satisfying a true pot head.

You still don't get it. Error 404: Logic not Found.