The Political Pot Thread

[emay]

didnt look too much into it but owners of those ten farms could be like RJ reynolds or one of those dudes, and if it was up to some like highest bidder then game over.

[runawayjimbo]

As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.   

Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.

Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.

In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.

Forrest from the trees, dudes.

Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.   

Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.

That's true, but no one has won a lawsuit after being fired, at least yet, which is a significant risk that still exists.

Actually, getting fired was probably a bad example on my part: a private employer would have every right to require drug test as precondition of employment regardless of the laws in a given state. Not sure how they would handle public employees; state can't discriminate but you also wouldn't want a bus/subway driver high while on the job. I guess that would have to be included in legalization legislation? Any idea how it's handled in currently legalized states?

ETA: CO Supreme Court recently ruled Dish Network can fire even for off-duty use based on federal classification; I'm guessing this will be resolved by less companies including THC in their screens (once it's removed from schedule 1, of course), but that there will always be some employers/industries opposed.

This bill was one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I've ever seen.

"Look at all the money Colorado is making! Now, if only we could funnel that into a handful of rich people's pockets..."

Changing a bad law is one thing. Changing a constitutional amendment is, traditionally and by design a very different and significantly more difficult matter.
Perhaps not in Ohio, but almost everywhere else that I'm aware of.

Legalization can reasonably come about by many paths but enshrining a monopoly in the constitution is horrid and not good democracy.

It doesn't have the enormously high bar that's required of an amendment to the US Constitution. All that is needed is a ballot referendum supported a simple majority (they were able to get two such referendums on ballot this time with relative ease). It's true that a gov't granted cartel would be increasingly difficult to disrupt as it grew in power and influence. (hell, I live in PA where we basically have this for liquor sales; every 4 or 8 yrs candidates for governor promise to privatize it only to kick the can repeatedly until they are out of office) But again, if the alternative is prohibition, I'll take my chances with the cartel.

[sunrisevt]

As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.   

Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.

Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.

In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.

Forrest from the trees, dudes.

Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.   

Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.

That's true, but no one has won a lawsuit after being fired, at least yet, which is a significant risk that still exists.

This bill was one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I've ever seen.

"Look at all the money Colorado is making! Now, if only we could funnel that into a handful of rich people's pockets..."

Changing a bad law is one thing. Changing a constitutional amendment is, traditionally and by design a very different and significantly more difficult matter.
Perhaps not in Ohio, but almost everywhere else that I'm aware of.

Legalization can reasonably come about by many paths but enshrining a monopoly in the constitution is horrid and not good democracy.

This, times at least a million.

[sunrisevt]

if the alternative is prohibition, I'll take my chances with the cartel.

Sounds like an invitation to an ass-raping from the law of unintended consequences.

[runawayjimbo]

if the alternative is prohibition, I'll take my chances with the cartel.

Sounds like an invitation to an ass-raping from the law of unintended consequences.

As opposed to the ass-raping you could catch in prison?

Again, I am not saying I am in favor of how the law was written. It is antithetical to every fiber of my free market loving being. But look at what you are in favor of in opposition to the (deeply flawed) law: a steadfast continuation the War on Drugs in the state. Ending prohibition and the far-reaching consequences of it is a far more important development in my mind than whether or not Nick Lachey makes bank off it.

[Hicks]

It's only a matter of time for legalization to happen, since state laws don't really provide protection it is critical that the distribution piece of the puzzle is handled properly.   

Prohibition has been in place for 80 years now, we might as well take the time to end it the right way.   

[runawayjimbo]

It's only a matter of time for legalization to happen, since state laws don't really provide protection it is critical that the distribution piece of the puzzle is handled properly.   

Prohibition has been in place for 80 years now, we might as well take the time to end it the right way.

The right way is to end it. Distribution is fixable; allowing people's lives to be ruined in the meantime is not.

Every time I am driving around with something, I have at least some amount of worry in the back of my mind. It doesn't consume me, but it's always there somewhere. Mostly I think about what my life would be like if I was unable to be with my three daughters, even for a little bit. You don't have that concern. Now, are you seriously going to tell me state laws don't provide protection?

Federal legalization will not happen until there is critical mass of states that force their hand. The more states that move, the faster it will happen and the better off we will all be. Full stop.

[Hicks]

Well for my entire life small amounts were a just a violation in the state of Oregon.   

But I still sketched out when I saw a cop because the shit makes you paranoid man! 

[VDB]

I find both sides of the Ohio argument to be very persuasive in their respective ways. As such I'm not quite sure which outcome I would have rooted for ahead of time; sitting here today I would have taken both joy and disappointment in the result either way.

Now I can only hope that a couple things are true:
1. Everyone views the failure of Issue 3 as a referendum on the terrible structure of it and not legalization itself
2. Immediate and positive lessons will be learned and a better attempt at this will be not far behind

[Buffalo Budd]

I'm sure this is old news to most of you but I thought I'd share anyway...

https://news.vice.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-introduced-a-bill-that-would-end-pot-prohibition?utm_source=vicenewsfb

[mattstick]

Interesting/long-ish read in NYMag about weed hitting the Colorado suburbs...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/americas-most-stoned-suburbs.html?#

[Buffalo Budd]

This is fantastic news in Canada, about damn time too.

https://news.vice.com/article/canadians-can-grow-their-own-medical-marijuana-court-says-in-bombshell-ruling?utm_source=vicenewsfb

[runawayjimbo]

BOOM! Another one down.

@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli

Background from yesterday since it's still developing...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/

[birdman]

BOOM! Another one down.

@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli

Background from yesterday since it's still developing...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/

While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.

[sunrisevt]

BOOM! Another one down.

@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli

Background from yesterday since it's still developing...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/

While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.

I doubt that the home-grow ban will be part of a lasting status quo; it flies in the face of our liberty-loving ethos.