Rolling Cannabis Politics Thread

56% of CA supports legalizing weed as of a couple months ago

xxposts

shakey i posted a more recent poll upthread fwiw, but again i think it's too early to hang your hat on either one

Wish 538 would run something about it.

yeah I agree - margins are probably soft, and we haven't seen any marketing really get started yet

xp

As I indicated upthread, while there are still federal anti-drug laws and while Congress is dominated by anti-legalization sentiment (think Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesee, ad infinitum), even if California voted to legalize pot, the Feds would be able to render that vote moot, by independent DEA raids, federal prosecutions, and what's worst, by almost certainly withholding vast amounts of federal funds for all kinds of stuff - from Medicaid to schools.

CA would relent within months.

It looks like the Federal government is moving away from enforcement, not towards it. It's hard to imagine Obama giving the order to resume the raiding. (I thought that had stopped, btw?)

yeah they have and Obama's made it explicitly clear that prosecuting marijuana is not a priority

Also, I don't know how this would actually play out politically, but with a right-wing totally committed to limiting federal power for probably the next six years, and a left-wing with a large group that is pro legalization, I can't see a lot of people pushing for federal enforcement.

no one's winning the White House with CA's votes either - state might take a dim view of a sitting president waging financial war against it, esp when it's in such dire straits already

withOUT CA's votes sorry

Hard to imagine there is anything a sitting Democratic president could do that would stop CA from voting for him. I think if Obama wanted to, he could act against CA's economic interests with more or less impunity.

just thinking of a president winning w/o CA makes me hear hoofbeats xp

a right-wing totally committed to limiting federal power

The right wing's commitment to limiting government definitely does not extend to the DEA, or to any action that could remotely be construed as "soft on drugs". One has only to look at the past 40 years to see this is true.

mainstream right-wingers still want pot smoking deadbeats in jail. limited federal intervention just means states can pass their own draconian laws against it, right?

Yes, but once you've opened the door to states passing their own draconian laws, you've also opened the door to some states totally legalizing it.

Nope. The argument would be that you can't have it legal in one state, because it would become a staging area for growing and then exporting pot to other states. Which is true enough.

CA needs a new cash crop!

It's time to return to an agrarian economy, dude.

I'm with Wm. F. Buckley on this issue. Ending pot prohibition makes sense to me in a dozen different ways. But legalization is not about to happen. Decriminalization of small amounts in self-selected places is the best you can get in the present climate.

if california successfully legalized it in a way that made a ton of $ for the state, I could imagine lots of things happening faster outside of california

Somewhat relevant: http://www.slate.com/id/2255385/

Review of new book about prohibition.

Colorado laws re dispensaries. Salon frames it as a positive ("Gov. Bill Ritter signs laws that could let hundreds of dispensaries continue to operate") tho ultimately it's going to involve places closing.

http://www.salon.com/news/medicine/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/06/07/us_medical_marijuana

Legalization is in a large part a civil rights cause.

― Adam Bruneau, Monday, June 7, 2010 9:31 AM Bookmark

^ DING DING DING

btw, this is what their trying to get on the ballot in OR: http://cannabistaxact.org/

Just wanna say wrt legalization versus medical legalization, while I firmly believe that medical legalization is the door to full legalization, I also believe that medical legalization is itself an important battle. I've known many people suffer through ailments that were alleviated in a healthy safe way through medical marijuana and without stating it explicitly, it's an issue that hits very close to home as well. While there are a lot of treatments for certain illnesses + disorders, those treatments often come with side effects and shit like that, whereas marijuana can often really be a wonder drug.

someone happened to have posted this on fb while i was reading this thread: State Medical Marijuana Laws Are Getting Stricter

xp: otm

The weed (legally prescribed in NC) is what got my older sis thru many of her darkest cancer days - it was the only thing she could rely upon to counter the nauseating effect of chemo & morphine (& she tried LOTS of things).

to be fair tho, the couple of weeks i was on a morphine drip, it was the only thing keeping me sane, not sure pot would have done the trick

but pot counters the sort of nausea that is a common side effect of opiates (& chemotherapy, glaucoma, etc.) - I did not mean to suggest it was an alternative to the pain-relief provided by morphine etc.

I understand that there is a limited medical benefit for marijuana (like your chemo patient who relies on it just to be able to eat), so I'm pretty much with CA's Compassionate Use legislation.

Apart from that, I'm largely apathetic toward outright legalization. Right now in CA, all you need is a signed recommendation from a doctor (any doctor—doesn't have to be your primary care doc or even someone referred by them) and you can possess up to eight ounces, and even grow your own.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

I think if it were to be legal for medical use only, it should be treated like other medicines. Put into a pill form, maybe engineered to emphasize certain physiological effects while minimizing others. Take all the fun out of it, so to speak.

A cop I once worked a case with told me that marijuana is "only half-illegal", and he was right. I don't think it's even possible to buy a dime bag of schwag these days, as everybody (even some of the school kids I've worked with) can get access to dispensary weed.

Even though I have friends who still smoke and are decent people, I've also come across way too many "I think I actually drive better when I'm high" type assholes to think that if faced with "Legalize: Y/N" on my ballot, I wouldn't vote either way. I'd be way more inclined to vote in favor of it if there were a ton of restrictions alongside it, such as stronger DUI laws, laws against providing it to those under 21, and regulations on when and where it can be consumed.

pretty sure most of that stuff comes included, dude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDc--yrWQc

XP I know there would have to be rules, but I specifically meant strong legislation. I don't know if simply treating it like alcohol would go far enough.

is there any good reason we shouldn't treat it like alcohol?

SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY

Because alcohol is a CNS depressant, and the effects from one serving are metabolized by the body in about an hour. THC is a psychoactive chemical, the effects of which take about four times as long to leave one's system. BAC is relatively easy to measure; the same can't be said for marijuana. Due to the different natures of each, they should be treated differently.

re: What I said above about Conservatives embracing legalization, here's the National Review arguing that the Tea Party should support legalization
http://article.nationalreview.com/435622/the-tea-party-and-the-drug-war/jeffrey-a-miron

Obviously this isn't like a policy paper from the right wing, but there's clearly a group of people who believe in legalization from the right.

Yes, the libertarian-leaning right is usually anti-prohibition. But the religious conservatives are a much larger part of that base. The libertarians love to make noise, but they don't vote in very large numbers. They more often sit on the sideline and bitch about everyone who isn't libertarian.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

i am not a chemo patient. i do have a MM recommendation for anxiety and depression. i smoke weed (legally) every day when i get home because it makes me feel happier and less anxious, and helps me get work done at night. it also helps me be more positive on a day-to-day basis. finally, it gets rid of the migraine symptoms i feel on the way home every day. i am a high school teacher, so i tend to deal with a lot of stress and anxiety at work and staying extremely positive is a really big part of being successful at my job (i.e. reaching the kids is much easier when you're smiling and mellow every day - mind you, i don't smoke at or before work)

as far as i know, the extent of benefit for a chemo patient is not much further than this. marijuana doesn't cure cancer. it just provides pain relief and emotional support. and stimulates appetite.

in everyone's opinion, do i deserve to use medical marijuana or not?

if the average joe can *legally* get pain relief and emotional support from OTC pills and alcohol, why not weed?

BTW, if anybody know, please don't use my real name or even my first name in this thread.

as a state employee AFAIK i don't have anything to worry about w/r/t my MM use but i'd rather keep it on the DL just in case anyway.

Everyone who has a right to consume alcohol ought to have the right to smoke weed.
Are conservative more afraid of Gays or Weed?

^^ see i agree entirely

hi-five

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2IcIq_OTlfc/S5FNtbfMZMI/AAAAAAAABSo/cqMTLbhmFJ4/s320/gay+pot.gif

I REALLY like that.

I would wear that as a button or badge.

Piece about the possible consequences of a legislative victory v. defeat in California:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2010/jun/08/marc_emery_calls_out_selfish_mar

Due to the different natures of each, they should be treated differently.

that's the only thing different about them?

I merely mentioned two differences, and each has its own set of ramifications.

As I already stated, I'm largely apathetic to whether it gets legalized or not, and my main issue is with recreational users taking advantage of laws designed to shield a those with valid medical conditions from prosecution.

All matter of substances, be they alcohol, illicit drugs, over-the-counter, or prescribed pills have the potential for misuse and abuse. If marijuana were to be legalized, it would be nice to think that everybody would use it responsibly, but that isn't even the case now. My concern rises when it becomes a public safety issue, and which criteria would then be used to determine legal vs. illegal use. DUI and public intoxication rules are obviously the biggest, and to say it should just be treated like alcohol is naïve, since with alcohol we can accurately quantify the amt. of one's intoxication. With weed, not so much. A daily drinker, if they haven't had any that day, would blow a clean breathalyzer. A daily smoker, even if they had gone without for a few days, would still test dirty. This would open a huge grey area wrt court cases involving DUI charges, etc. Why shouldn't I be skeptical that the existing legislation would neatly cover everything, and that there won't be any unforeseen issues with legalization?

I could almost, as a cursory matter, see the rationale of getting upset about recreational pot users "abusing" some law that exists for the benefit of medical marijuana users, but then I pause, squint real hard, and think to myself "no actually why would I give a shit about that, like at all?"

I mean if I don't care if it's legalized or not, and if I don't care if someone uses it or not, I'm supposed to get offended if they do so for sham reasons under the pretext of a law where the state clearly isn't interested in drawing the distinction? I'm sorry, but that's really fucking stupid.

Minnesota voice: “And he’s a good Lutheran”.