The Marijuana Legalization Thread

I looked into this a bit, and it looks like the Post might have actually missed the bigger story, which is that the total number of car deaths has been rising since legalization.

That's disconcerting.

yahooyahoo said:

Food for thought.....

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/


The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado who tested positive for marijuana has risen sharply each year since 2013, more than doubling in that time, federal and state data show. A Denver Post analysis of the data and coroner reports provides the most comprehensive look yet into whether roads in the state have become more dangerous since the drug’s legalization.



At the very least this will starve the space of capital- never mind the potential felony charges. The federal asset forfeiture alone will drive money away.


Service providers likewise will walk. Storefronts aren’t going to rent to a dispensary that may end up off limits for the duration of the legal disposition at best and seized with criminal charges related to furtherance of whatever the feds come up with at worst.


I dunno. I imagine there will be court cases challenging the policy change, and Sessions is probably misreading how unpopular it will be for the Feds to start intruding on their new freedoms, so there may be pushback. Of course, the legal states are all blue (I think), so he probably doesn't give a ****.


I think you are right on both counts, but the court cases won’t go anywhere outside of maybe an early venue-shopped win that’ll be overturned. The law is the law. 


There’s a federalism discussion to be had here, but the argument  Corey Gardner is making- or threat, I suppose, since that’s all I’ve seen here- is theater in the sense that gee, Corey, there is a mechanism for getting rid of federal laws we don’t like, and as a sitting US senator you seem to be in a pretty good position to influence that.


First, I don't think Sessions cares that his policy change will be unpopular.

I'm not sure how states will successfully challenge this in court since technically the federal law is not changing.  

drummerboy said:

I dunno. I imagine there will be court cases challenging the policy change, and Sessions is probably misreading how unpopular it will be for the Feds to start intruding on their new freedoms, so there may be pushback. Of course, the legal states are all blue (I think), so he probably doesn't give a ****.



I remember when politicians from Sessions' neck of the woods believed in States' Rights


His job is to enforce the laws as written. If there is a federalism argument to be made it would be squashed by the almighty power of the interstate commerce clause,to pick the biggest catch-all jurisdictional people have probably heard of. 


I am not boostering ICC, just pointing out that it has been used to federally regulate activity that is far more tenuously found to be “interstate” than financing and facilitating the production & distribution of an intoxicant.


There are 2 constitutionally prescribed methods for doing away with laws. Ignoring ones we don’t like is disingenuous and phony. If America does want weed, she can certainly have it. But she needs to clean up her standing impediments that she put in place.


Please don’t take this as an argument for or against weed. My views there waver on a daily basis and when examined- which I do often because this is such an interesting issue on so many axis- are just not internally consistent in a way that I’m comfortable with. When that’s the case my instinct is to go with more freedom rather than less. I’m waiting for compelling data and information to put it all to bed. That may be at an end if the feds slam the door. 


Not that anyone cares about the half-interested internal debate not really wracking my mind, but I want to be clear I’m not commenting on this from a “weed good weed bad” perspective.


yeah, the bottom line is that Congress needs to step in and clarify Federal enforcement of pot laws in legal states.

But we now how pro-active they are, so .....


I've come to the conclusion that Jeff Sessions thinks you inject marijuana.


he has not a clue. He still thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary.


eliz said:

I've come to the conclusion that Jeff Sessions thinks you inject marijuana.



If Trump was smart (what a Yuge if), he'd lead on this.  A majority of Americans, including at least a slight majority of Repubs, support legalization.  And there's always the states rights sentiment among doctrinaire conservatives, even among those who may be ambivalent about pot.  Plus, it would be a way to tweak Sessions, who as been in his doghouse for some time. 


Part of the issue is that there currently are not good tests to see how much THC is in your system right now, just that it is in your system.  Research for better testing is difficult since the government classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug.  Studies have shown that people can test positive for high amounts of THC days after using since it is fat soluble.  This doesn't mean that the person is still impaired, just that it shows up under the current test.  

I understand that drug tests done after fatal accidents show more people with marijuana in their system than before, but unless you can show that fatal accidents overall in CO are rising faster than other states, then you can't assume that increased usage is the cause.  Fatal accidents are on the rise over the entire country, distracted driving is believed to be the main factor. 

One reason why more people may be testing positive is that more people may be using, but not necessarily driving while under the influence.  Someone may have abstained before due to not wanting to risk an arrest by purchasing, but now feels secure in going to a safe dispensary.  They use edibles on Saturday, and then get into an accident on Monday they still have a good chance of it showing up in their system with the current tests available. 

Current federal guidelines make it difficult for research into better testing, and then they use lack of adequate testing methods as one of the excuses to keep it illegal.

Personally, I'm for legalization, but I wouldn't even consider using it until it was legal at all levels.  Since it is still technically against the law, you can still be fired or face other consequences if you test positive.  I really hope this country comes to their senses by the time my boys are old enough to start thinking about that.  

http://drcarlhart.com/marijuana-tests-dont-indicate-impairment/


During the campaign Trump said explicitly that he would leave this up to the states.

FWIW

bub said:

If Trump was smart (what a Yuge if), he'd lead on this.  A majority of Americans, including at least a slight majority of Repubs, support legalization.  And there's always the states rights sentiment among doctrinaire conservatives, even among those who may be ambivalent about pot.  Plus, it would be a way to tweak Sessions, who as been in his doghouse for some time. 



Good point. I found data that showed CO deaths started rising a few years ago, but didn't compare against nationwide rates.

I'll be back.

spontaneous said:

 

I understand that drug tests done after fatal accidents show more people with marijuana in their system than before, but unless you can show that fatal accidents overall in CO are rising faster than other states, then you can't assume that increased usage is the cause.  Fatal accidents are on the rise over the entire country, distracted driving is believed to be the main factor. 


I have a feeling this is going to be a long thread.

"I mean, like, how long have we been talking about this now, already? It seems like forever, man."

"Yeah. Dude, look at that cat. He looks exactly like Kylo Ren."


The states where Marijuana is legal should not cooperate in any way with Federal enforcement. 


Legalize it. Use the revenue to cut property taxes which we can no longer entirely deduct. On an interesting note about property value, an acre in the California desert that was previously valued at 60,000 is now priced at 1,000,000 specifically because of weed production.

As for the dangers, having worked in clubs for years it appeared that the crowd that drank and coked and did ludes, were at greater risk for everything than the stoners who rarely made it to Studio.



terp said:

The states where Marijuana is legal should not cooperate in any way with Federal enforcement. 

Wouldn’t matter. Couldn’t work like sanctuary cities, for example. They wouldn’t be waiting for the sheriff to tell them who came to county jail with weed. Feds have always gone after distributors. It is as simple as looking in the phone book to see where the local storefront is, or flying over farmland to see where the grows are. They’re not hiding.


Most of the people running dispensaries are not hardened dead-end drug dealers. A few busts with real charges and the legit monetary and human capital goes away.




Jackson_Fusion said:


terp said:

The states where Marijuana is legal should not cooperate in any way with Federal enforcement. 

Wouldn’t matter. Couldn’t work like sanctuary cities, for example. They wouldn’t be waiting for the sheriff to tell them who came to county jail with weed. Feds have always gone after distributors. It is as simple as looking in the phone book to see where the local storefront is, or flying over farmland to see where the grows are. They’re not hiding.

Most of the people running dispensaries are not hardened dead-end drug dealers. A few busts with real charges and the legit monetary and human capital goes away.

Asset forfeiture is going to scare away pretty much everyone. I lease a storefront to a marijuana shop and best case the feds padlock the door for 2 years while I fight through the courts. No thanks. 



RobB said:



Jackson_Fusion said:


terp said:

The states where Marijuana is legal should not cooperate in any way with Federal enforcement. 

Wouldn’t matter. Couldn’t work like sanctuary cities, for example. They wouldn’t be waiting for the sheriff to tell them who came to county jail with weed. Feds have always gone after distributors. It is as simple as looking in the phone book to see where the local storefront is, or flying over farmland to see where the grows are. They’re not hiding.

Most of the people running dispensaries are not hardened dead-end drug dealers. A few busts with real charges and the legit monetary and human capital goes away.

Asset forfeiture is going to scare away pretty much everyone. I lease a storefront to a marijuana shop and best case the feds padlock the door for 2 years while I fight through the courts. No thanks. 

I have to agree. But it’s not going to stop people from smoking weed. It’s just going to clog up our jail system worse than it is already. SMH


RobB said:
 
Jackson_Fusion said:
 
terp said:

The states where Marijuana is legal should not cooperate in any way with Federal enforcement. 
Wouldn’t matter. Couldn’t work like sanctuary cities, for example. They wouldn’t be waiting for the sheriff to tell them who came to county jail with weed. Feds have always gone after distributors. It is as simple as looking in the phone book to see where the local storefront is, or flying over farmland to see where the grows are. They’re not hiding.

Most of the people running dispensaries are not hardened dead-end drug dealers. A few busts with real charges and the legit monetary and human capital goes away.
Asset forfeiture is going to scare away pretty much everyone. I lease a storefront to a marijuana shop and best case the feds padlock the door for 2 years while I fight through the courts. No thanks. 

Agree that the affect on distributors is not the most significant part of Sessions' move.  As Mr. RobB noted, asset forfeiture from otherwise regular businesses would discourage them from doing business with the (state-allowed) distributors.  Not just property rentals, but banking and other contracts with the businesses will be deterred.


I don’t know about other folks but there is no way I would vote to convict someone for selling pot in a state where that was legal. 


It's heartening to see that Sessions is getting some significant pushback. Hey, maybe Trump will step in and remind Sessions that Trump promised to leave the states alone.


Hey, one can dream.



GoSlugs said:

I don’t know about other folks but there is no way I would vote to convict someone for selling pot in a state where that was legal. 

As someone said above, its not conviction. Its asset forfeiture. Where you are guilty until proven innocent. T%hat will kill any business undertaking.


If you're not familiar with how pot was made illegal, here's a good take on it.

==========================================================================================

If you look for the roots of America’s ban on cannabis, you’ll find nearly all roads lead to a man named Harry Anslinger. He was the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which laid the ground work for the modern-day DEA, and the first architect of the war on drugs.

Anslinger was appointed in 1930, just as the prohibition of alcohol was beginning to crumble (it was finally repealed in 1933), and remained in power for 32 years. Early on, he was on record essentially saying cannabis use was no big deal. He called the idea that it made people mad or violent an “absurd fallacy.”

But when Anslinger was put in charge of the FBN, he changed his position entirely.

“From the moment he took charge of the bureau, Harry was aware of the weakness of his new position. A war on narcotics alone — cocaine and heroin, outlawed in 1914 — wasn’t enough,” author Johann Hari wrote in his book, “Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs.” “They were used only by a tiny minority, and you couldn’t keep an entire department alive on such small crumbs. He needed more.”

Consequently, Anslinger made it his mission to rid the U.S. of all drugs — including cannabis. His influence played a major role in the introduction and passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which outlawed possessing or selling pot.

Fueled by a handful of 1920s newspaper stories about crazed or violent episodes after marijuana use, Anslinger first claimed that the drug could cause psychosis and eventually insanity. In a radio address, he stated young people are “slaves to this narcotic, continuing addiction until they deteriorate mentally, become insane, turn to violent crime and murder.”
In particular, he latched on to the story of a young man named Victor Licata, who had hacked his family to death with an ax, supposedly while high on cannabis. It was discovered many years later, however, that Licata had a history of mental illness in his family, and there was no proof he ever used the drug.

The problem was, there was little scientific evidence that supported Anslinger’s claims. He contacted 30 scientists, according to Hari, and 29 told him cannabis was not a dangerous drug. But it was the theory of the single expert who agreed with him that he presented to the public — cannabis was an evil that should be banned — and the press ran with this sensationalized version.
ap-454881072289.jpg

Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger announces a series of raids in the nation’s big cities aimed at crippling the narcotics traffic in New York on Jan. 4, 1958. More than 500 suspected peddlers were bagged.
AP

The second component to Anslinger’s strategy was racial. He claimed that black people and Latinos were the primary users of marijuana, and it made them forget their place in the fabric of American society. He even went so far as to argue that jazz musicians were creating “Satanic” music all thanks to the influence of pot. This obsession eventually led to a sort of witch hunt against the legendary singer Billie Holiday, who struggled with heroin addiction; she lost her license to perform in New York cabarets and continued to be dogged by law enforcement until her death.

“The insanity of the racism is a thing to behold when you go into his archives,” Hari told CBS News. “He claims that cannabis promotes interracial mixing, interracial relationships.”

The word “marijuana” itself was part of this approach. What was commonly known as  cannabis until the early 1900s was instead called marihuana, a Spanish word more likely to be associated with Mexicans.

“He was able to do this because he was tapping into very deep anxieties in the culture that were not to do with drugs — and attaching them to this drug,” Hari said. Essentially, in 1930s America, it wasn’t hard to use racist rhetoric to associate the supposed harms of cannabis with minorities and immigrants.
So as the nationwide attitude towards cannabis began to fall in line with Anslinger’s, he testified before Congress in hearings for the Marijuana Tax Act. His testimony centered around the ideas he had been pushing all along — including a provocative letter from a local newspaper editor in Colorado, saying “I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents.”

All these years later, many of the threads in Anslinger’s arguments are still present in the American conversation about legalizing marijuana. The act was passed in 1937, and the rest, they say, is history.




There are Federal judges who have been removed from office through impeachment by having found guilty of misleading the Senate on their confirmation. They lied.

It seems Sessions may have done the same. Can cabinet members be impeached or does impeachment only apply to the president, the VP and judges?

His latest move came in protest against Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s new policy allowing federal prosecutors to crack down on the marijuana industry — a reversal of Obama administration policies, and a blow to states such as Colorado that have legalized cannabis despite federal law against it.

“This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states,” [Sen Cory] Gardner tweeted.

I realize impeachments would require a new congress. Which is why I hope decent people will get out the 2018 and 2020 vote and also not waste their vote by voting third party.


Impeaching the chief federal prosecutor in the nation for enforcing long-standing federal law seems a stretch.


Senator Gardner, as I pointed out earlier, is incredibly well positioned relative to most citizens to take action to implement a change in the law. 


Again- torn on legal weed, leaning towards legalization camp. But if you want it legalized, you go through the same process that made it illegal. If the nation wants to ignore a law, repeal it. Simply invalidating it by ignoring it and citing “popular opinion” is exceedingly undemocratic. 


Agreed.  The cowardice of Congress should not be indulged.  It's time for a vote.  


Jackson_Fusion said:

Impeaching the chief federal prosecutor in the nation for enforcing long-standing federal law seems a stretch.




Senator Gardner, as I pointed out earlier, is incredibly well positioned relative to most citizens to take action to implement a change in the law. 




Again- torn on legal weed, leaning towards legalization camp. But if you want it legalized, you go through the same process that made it illegal. If the nation wants to ignore a law, repeal it. Simply invalidating it by ignoring it and citing “popular opinion” is exceedingly undemocratic. 




Jackson_Fusion said:

Impeaching the chief federal prosecutor in the nation for enforcing long-standing federal law seems a stretch.

I did not write that. Read what I wrote it.

Impeachment for misleading the Senate in the confirmation. Its grounds for impeachment and the Senate conviction of Federal judges removed from office..



BG9 said:



Jackson_Fusion said:

Impeaching the chief federal prosecutor in the nation for enforcing long-standing federal law seems a stretch.

I did not write that. Read what I wrote it.

Impeachment for misleading the Senate in the confirmation. Its grounds for impeachment and the Senate conviction of Federal judges removed from office..

Well, I certainly wasn’t coming after you. Perhaps you can read what Gardner said then. He said it’s what Sessions told HIM. He did not state that it’s what he told the Senate. He said it’s what he told him “prior to his confirmation”. What was said in their discussion then? Are candidates sworn prior to speaking to Senators outside of an in session Senate? I don’t know! Do you? I take it as he is claiming Sessions mislead HIM, not the Senate. If you have other information suggesting he perjured himself, which would be a high crime/misdemeanor that would of course change the math on that. Do you happen to have a clip of the relevant testimony? TIA.


http://www.thisweekinimmigration.com/uploads/6/9/2/2/69228175/hearingtranscript_senatejudiciarysessionsconfirmationhearing_2017-01-10.pdf


Here’s day one... weed came up. You can see Session’s response. Gardner’s not on the judiciary committee so he wasn’t asking the question. So not sure what venue he would have had to ask questions. Maybe he didn’t see the transcript?


I don’t think Gardner was trying to suggest that wrongdoing had occurred in a legal sense- just that what Sessions did doesn’t square with what he told Gardner.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.