Legalize it. [Marijuana]

[GreasyJack]

@Ethilrist

:dubious:

… and the medicinal market, which includes a bunch of other states?

Well, okay, but that’s still a tiny fraction of the total amount of marijuana being sold in the US. Plus a lot of the MM dispensaries have been caught working with criminal organizations in order to sell their product to recreational users. Full legalization should put an end to that sort of funny business.

[marshmallow]

There’s the snack food industry, fast food, TV dinner makers, Cartoon Network…that’s a couple hundred billion in influence. I’d think they’d be all for it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Gateway

I think weed should be legalized.

Weed doesn’t lead to crime anymore then alcohol does. It CREATES crime if you make it illegal. The Capones couldn’t have existed except for the fact that alcohol was illegal. You can’t go to the cops if your deal goes wrong so you need to take care of things yourself if you’re in that buisness.
It doesn’t inherently cause people to steal stuff.
It may not make you want to succeed in business, but it may make you happy while you are not giving a crap about the latest techniques in marketing strategies. In a FREE COUNTRY, this should be your right.
It can in some cases trigger psychotic episodes. That is a risk that YOU should decide for yourself, not another human.
There has been no case of someone ever OD-ing on weed. If this were a legitimate reason to not smoke weed (which it’s not) then a lot of over the counter medications as well as alcohol needs to be illegal.
There is evidence that (even if you are not psychotic) it is bad for the brain. Lack of motivation as well as short term memory loss are indicative of brain rewiring/ altered chemistry (in a negative way as a short term memory is a part of our brain functioning). Still, it should be YOUR CHOICE if you take this path or not.

That’s all I have for now. Peace.

The problem with all these choice and nanny state arguments is that they also apply to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and every other narcotic and intoxicant.

@PatriotGrrrl

breaking news: The NH House has voted in favor of legalization.

Unfortunately, the governor has said she would veto it. But a veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority.

I’m sure I won’t be the first to make a New Hempshire joke, so I’ll limit it to that mention.

@GreasyJack

…a lot of the MM dispensaries have been caught working with criminal organizations in order to sell their product to recreational users.

Cite?

[andros]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The problem with all these choice and nanny state arguments is that they also apply to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and every other narcotic and intoxicant.

Well, that’s only a problem if the OP is inconsistent in his application, and asserts that those other substances should remain illegal.

[GreasyJack]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Cite?

Here’s a recent example: Feds raid Denver-area marijuana dispensaries, grow operations, 2 homes – The Denver Post

But more generally, ever since the Obama administration issued the guideline for the DEA not to go after medical marijuana dispensaries that are in compliance with state law, there have been dozens of raids on MM dispensaries. The activists often claim it’s the feds reneging on their promise but, at least in the local cases I’ve followed, every single one of the targets have turned out to be grossly out-of-compliance. The most common issue is them funneling product from legal medical grow ops to recreational users, usually in concert with the usual drug dealing gangs.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Thanks!

[Smapti]

@Farin

Unconstitutional? No. Illegal? Closer to the truth. But, a state doesn’t necessarily have to consider something criminal that the federal government does and vice versa.

A state cannot, however, unilaterally override the Pure Food and Drug Act and declare that a given compound can be prescribed as medicine when the FDA hasn’t approved it.

[andros]

@Smapti

A state cannot, however, unilaterally override the Pure Food and Drug Act and declare that a given compound can be prescribed as medicine when the FDA hasn’t approved it.

Which, again, is arguably illegal but not unconstitutional.

[Farin]

@Smapti

A state cannot, however, unilaterally override the Pure Food and Drug Act and declare that a given compound can be prescribed as medicine when the FDA hasn’t approved it.

A state can, however, stop all of the agents working for the state or any municipal incorporation within the state from enforcing the FDA rules and regulations.

So, what happened before is City Police would arrest you when they found you making viagra out of your portapotty lab, porcess the evidence, and then turn you over to the feds for prosecution. What would happen after passing the above mandate at the state level is that the feds would have to discover your deeds, arrest you, process the evidence, and then prosecute you.

[Sailboat]

Given the global battle against cigarette smoking, can we somehow prevent people from smoking marijuana?

I have a LOT less trouble with people using THC as long as they’re not polluting my lungs and my environment with smoke. Patch, pill, what-have-you; just don’t burn the crap in shared airspace (and unless you’re on the International Space Station, it’s pretty much all shared airspace).

It felt like we were getting close to finally not breathing other people’s smoke everywhere, and now this idea suddenly gathers momentum. Can we try to convert it to a “Smoke free THC” movement before I have to breathe reeking clouds of this everywhere I go?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Sure. Or you could suck it up.

[running_coach]

@Sailboat

Given the global battle against cigarette smoking, can we somehow prevent people from smoking marijuana?

I have a LOT less trouble with people using THC as long as they’re not polluting my lungs and my environment with smoke. Patch, pill, what-have-you; just don’t burn the crap in shared airspace (and unless you’re on the International Space Station, it’s pretty much all shared airspace).

It felt like we were getting close to finally not breathing other people’s smoke everywhere, and now this idea suddenly gathers momentum. Can we try to convert it to a “Smoke free THC” movement before I have to breathe reeking clouds of this everywhere I go?

Since part of the Colorado law is that you can’t smoke in public, I doubt you have much to worry about.

[andros]

@runner pat

Since part of the Colorado law is that you can’t smoke in public, I doubt you have much to worry about.

Ditto Washington. Ditto DC. Etc.

[cmyk]

@runner pat

Since part of the Colorado law is that you can’t smoke in public, I doubt you have much to worry about.

That and vaporizers are becoming very popular it seems.

…huh, I wonder if there’s an “e-cigarette” for MJ use.

[scabpicker]

@cmyk

That and vaporizers are becoming very popular it seems.

…huh, I wonder if there’s an “e-cigarette” for MJ use.

I’ve been offered extracts for that purpose, which I politely declined. It’s basically just a question different fluid for the existing e-cigarettes.

[CJJ]

@GreasyJack

But more generally, ever since the Obama administration issued the guideline for the DEA not to go after medical marijuana dispensaries that are in compliance with state law, there have been dozens of raids on MM dispensaries. The activists often claim it’s the feds reneging on their promise but, at least in the local cases I’ve followed, every single one of the targets have turned out to be grossly out-of-compliance. The most common issue is them funneling product from legal medical grow ops to recreational users, usually in concert with the usual drug dealing gangs.

Bumping this thread to highlight a recent case that, IMO, show federal prosecutorial abuse regarding a California grower. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner has been going after a California medical marijuana cooperative:

Wagner initially argued that the large size of the medical pot cooperative, the fact that it had a storefront presence and its for-profit status meant that it violated state law. But the cooperative was legally established as a nonprofit and its owner, Matt Davies, was paid only $50,000 for more than a year’s work…

After the state Supreme Court affirmed that Wagner had misunderstood state law, he shifted his rationale, arguing that federal law prohibited such activity. But after the Department of Justice revised its policy in August 2013 to make explicit that the size of an operation should not be a driving factor in prosecution decisions, Wagner insisted that the new policy only applied to future cases. “*t is expressly prospective,” Wagner wrote.

(Wagner) was particularly aggressive in pushing back against the so-called Ogden memo, a 2009 document which set up formal guidelines for investigations of medical marijuana facilities…

“As the Court correctly pointed out at the sentencing hearing for defendant Davies, changing and ongoing executive branch priorities in no way bind judicial branch decision making,” prosecutors said, applying the argument to Duncan’s case.

Wagner and his staff went on to add that even members of the administration are not subject to directives from that administration, but rather will follow the direction of Congress as they interpret it. “The defendant points to press reports about statements of the Attorney General and the latest in a series of memoranda dealing with U.S. Department of Justice policy and priorities dealing with marijuana enforcement … The Controlled Substances Act continues to be the law until amended by Congress and the Sentencing Guidelines apply no matter where the federal court is located,” they wrote. “Thus, defendant Duncan’s argument in this area should be given little weight.”

HuffPo comments that Wagner’s shifting rationale indicates a political bent to his analysis. To my mind the idea that he can just dismiss the opinions of his own Justice Department (and the Attorney General he works for) shows that de facto legalization is just not enough.