Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Puff, Puff, Passed   (sfgate.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Colorado  
•       •       •

2806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 10:08 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-07 09:16:59 AM  

farm9.staticflickr.com

 
2012-11-07 09:20:09 AM  
The legalization of marijuana and voter-approved same-sex marriage were both big victors last night.
 
2012-11-07 09:24:34 AM  

slayer199: The legalization of marijuana and voter-approved same-sex marriage were both big victors last night.


And both lead to sucking and giggling.
 
2012-11-07 09:38:36 AM  
FTA:

In Massachusetts, residents approved a measure to allow medical use, while Arkansas voters rejected such a proposal.

You stupid f*cks.

Seriously. For medical use and you say no? F*ck yourselves. All of you.
 
2012-11-07 09:39:46 AM  
What a GREAT day to be a liberal!
 
2012-11-07 09:41:49 AM  
Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.
 
2012-11-07 09:42:46 AM  
So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?
 
2012-11-07 09:46:37 AM  
p.twimg.com
 
2012-11-07 09:48:23 AM  
That's a beautiful thing. There are so many people wasting their lives in jail because of marijuana offenses.
 
2012-11-07 09:50:07 AM  

syrynxx: That's a beautiful thing. There are so many people wasting their lives in jail because of marijuana offenses.


They should let anyone in jail for marijuana go, but I doubt they weill.
 
2012-11-07 10:08:04 AM  

EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.


Yeah, this is true. Corporate insurance companies still dictate drug policies at the employment level. I wouldn't expect a sea change there.

I also wonder how the Feds would treat the tax revenue for CO and retail profits with their ability to confiscate "ill gotten gains" even if they don't send in piles of DEA agents.
 
2012-11-07 10:08:56 AM  
Tim Lincecum wants a trade to Colorado or Seattle
 
2012-11-07 10:12:08 AM  

minoridiot: syrynxx: That's a beautiful thing. There are so many people wasting their lives in jail because of marijuana offenses.

They should let anyone in jail for marijuana go, but I doubt they weill.


How'd that proposal to overturn 3 strikes and you are out in California go?
 
2012-11-07 10:14:33 AM  
I think I heard on NPR that they have till 2017 to actually get the law functioning but I was half paying attention. If that is true it is kinda a harsh on our mellow.
 
2012-11-07 10:14:38 AM  
I thought you were cool, Oregon.
 
2012-11-07 10:16:15 AM  
It's going to be interesting watching the flat earthers in the House of Representatives draft bill after bill aimed solely at limiting federal funding for states that have legalized recreational marijuana. It will fit in so perfectly with their goals of more freedom and a smaller federal government.
 
2012-11-07 10:17:37 AM  
What I hope CO and Washington will cause by passing rec use is the Federal government to actually do something sensible. The 13.7 billion dollars a years spent enforcing an idiotic laws could be better use on programs to help people instead of ruining lives. Already have a red card so this is just a good thing.
 
2012-11-07 10:17:46 AM  

nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!



Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.
 
2012-11-07 10:18:06 AM  

EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.


Yeah, I'd be happier about all of this stuff if I were still in college.
 
2012-11-07 10:19:39 AM  

TheSwizz: I thought you were cool, Oregon.


Yeah, what the holy hell Oregon??!?!?
 
2012-11-07 10:19:55 AM  

Nadie_AZ: minoridiot: syrynxx: That's a beautiful thing. There are so many people wasting their lives in jail because of marijuana offenses.

They should let anyone in jail for marijuana go, but I doubt they weill.

How'd that proposal to overturn 3 strikes and you are out in California go?


Passed with 68%.
 
2012-11-07 10:22:09 AM  

EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.



Of course. And that's cool. Getting fired is a far cry from wasting taxpayer money and police resources on locking someone up and/or putting them through the court system over a stupid joint.
 
2012-11-07 10:23:55 AM  
we passed medical marijuana a while ago and while those that utilize it are breaking federal law, the Feds have stated that they just don't have the time or manpower to do anything about it. it'll be the same for recreational use. they really don't care too much about small amounts.


/wishes he could fast forward to when the HR policies change...
 
2012-11-07 10:26:27 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.


Nothing partisan about your posts... Nosiree.

/pretending you dislike republicans while spending 99% of your time ranting about dems doesn't count.
//I do agree dems and the voters they need to win bear responsibility on this issue.
 
2012-11-07 10:26:44 AM  

max_pooper: Nadie_AZ: minoridiot: syrynxx: That's a beautiful thing. There are so many people wasting their lives in jail because of marijuana offenses.

They should let anyone in jail for marijuana go, but I doubt they weill.

How'd that proposal to overturn 3 strikes and you are out in California go?

Passed with 68%.


YAY!

Retroactive?
 
2012-11-07 10:26:57 AM  
A great win for common farking sense. Still a long way to go and figuring out the regulatory and tax side of things will take some time. The Dems just won a significant majority in the formerly Repub run CO state house, as well, so no poison pills from the legislature. It's a good farking day.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-07 10:29:13 AM  

UberDave: EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.


Of course. And that's cool. Getting fired is a far cry from wasting taxpayer money and police resources on locking someone up and/or putting them through the court system over a stupid joint.


CO employers, knowing what I do about CO, may have decided long ago that writing off ~30% of potential employees by having mandatory pre-employment drug tests was not a good plan. Those that still test may, after this vote, decide that writing off potential employees (potentially MORE than the BS 30% number I made up for the other scenario) for doing things that are now legal at the state level is either wrong or useless.

Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

They can still test for coke, heroin, speed, ecstasy, LSD, meth, and many, many others (all of which are out of your system within a week).
 
2012-11-07 10:29:23 AM  

Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Nothing partisan about your posts... Nosiree.

/pretending you dislike republicans while spending 99% of your time ranting about dems doesn't count.
//I do agree dems and the voters they need to win bear responsibility on this issue.


Well, on Fark, where 99% of posters already rant about Republicans, people who think both parties are full of shiat prefer to call out the side that usually gets treated as political Jesus instead.
 
2012-11-07 10:29:38 AM  

Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Nothing partisan about your posts... Nosiree.

/pretending you dislike republicans while spending 99% of your time ranting about dems doesn't count.



???

I have no sacred cows. I rag hardest on whoever is in power - because they have the power to make changes.
 
2012-11-07 10:32:49 AM  
"The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will," Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said in a statement. "This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly."

Lol. Nice.
 
2012-11-07 10:33:52 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.


You're right, but I have a hunch that without a re-election to worry about, Obama may do some surprising things. I don't suspect he'll go TOO far, but he may well tell the DEA to lay off, especially on the medical frontier. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but a second term is where things can really get done, IF he works toward good things.
 
2012-11-07 10:34:12 AM  
I can be there in 10 hours!
 
2012-11-07 10:34:48 AM  

nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Don't have to be a liberal/Democrat to believe in the recreational use of pot and the equality of marriage.

/Libertarian.
 
2012-11-07 10:36:14 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-07 10:36:36 AM  

TheSwizz: I thought you were cool, Oregon.


This was the big head scratcher for me last night. As a resident of Oregon, I thought this would pass with flying colors.
 
2012-11-07 10:36:42 AM  
My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?
 
2012-11-07 10:37:19 AM  
I am happy to have voted on the first successful legalization in the US. It's largely symbolic at this point, but it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully politicians will start listening to what people are saying. Probably not though. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
 
2012-11-07 10:39:11 AM  

MFAWG: My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?


Whatever floats your boat man. It's your choice.
 
2012-11-07 10:40:14 AM  

Amos Quito: I have no sacred cows. I rag hardest on whoever is in power - because they have the power to make changes.


Be thankful he didn't say "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD, SO VOTE REPUBLICAN!"
 
2012-11-07 10:42:21 AM  
I live in Colorado and I love weed.

This has been a great morning.
 
2012-11-07 10:42:21 AM  

TheTrashcanMan: TheSwizz: I thought you were cool, Oregon.

This was the big head scratcher for me last night. As a resident of Oregon, I thought this would pass with flying colors.


I think you are too close to the cali status quo money
 
2012-11-07 10:47:25 AM  

Rev.K: FTA:

In Massachusetts, residents approved a measure to allow medical use, while Arkansas voters rejected such a proposal.

You stupid f*cks.

Seriously. For medical use and you say no? F*ck yourselves. All of you.


It was actually a much closer vote than I expected (55 to 45 I believe). This being the first southern state to get medical marijuana on the ballot, this is encouraging, especially considering there wasn't really a big push as far as advertising, etc for the measure. A lost opportunity in restrospect to be sure, but generally things are looking up across the board. I can't be too unhappy all things considered.
 
2012-11-07 10:48:24 AM  
Lobby politicians in WA and CO to pass legislation that makes it illegal for employers to fire someone for testing positive for a decriminalized substance.

EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.

 
2012-11-07 10:49:06 AM  

Fribble: I live in Colorado and I love weed.

This has been a great morning.


This. Girlfriend said I was giddy before I left for work lol
 
2012-11-07 10:50:34 AM  

TheTrashcanMan: TheSwizz: I thought you were cool, Oregon.

This was the big head scratcher for me last night. As a resident of Oregon, I thought this would pass with flying colors.


I read that OR's language was poorly written.
 
2012-11-07 10:51:35 AM  

nekom: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

You're right, but I have a hunch that without a re-election to worry about, Obama may do some surprising things. I don't suspect he'll go TOO far, but he may well tell the DEA to lay off, especially on the medical frontier. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but a second term is where things can really get done, IF he works toward good things.



Unfortunately he has shown that he has a authoritarian bent. Like the MMJ issue in CA, as a relevant example,

If you think about it, the people of Colorado and Washington just thumbed their noses at the All Powerful Feds BIG TIME.

This issue is not and has never been about public health or safety, it is about the Feds being able to force their will on the States and the People - a trend that, as you may have noticed, has been increasing in many areas of American life over the past several decades.

This is a cold, defiant challenge to Federal Authoratay: If the Feds back down, they will lose face, look weak, and open the door to having many more of their asinine powers challenged.

What will they do?
 
2012-11-07 10:52:18 AM  
Colorado work day schedules have changed. They need to show up an hour early for all those 9-5 jobs now, because going forward, they are letting out at 4:20.
 
2012-11-07 10:55:27 AM  
i935.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-07 10:56:38 AM  

Rev.K: FTA:

In Massachusetts, residents approved a measure to allow medical use, while Arkansas voters rejected such a proposal.

You stupid f*cks.

Seriously. For medical use and you say no? F*ck yourselves. All of you.


Speaking for Arkansans, we got pretty close, and our state has been trending redder. Even in that environment, it nearly passed. We'll get it next time - most of us were surprised it even got onto the ballot.
 
2012-11-07 10:57:20 AM  

machoprogrammer: Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Nothing partisan about your posts... Nosiree.

/pretending you dislike republicans while spending 99% of your time ranting about dems doesn't count.
//I do agree dems and the voters they need to win bear responsibility on this issue.

Well, on Fark, where 99% of posters already rant about Republicans, people who think both parties are full of shiat prefer to call out the side that usually gets treated as political Jesus instead.



Indeed. Cheer-leading libs /dems on Fark is about as productive as proselytizing for Islam in Mecca.
 
2012-11-07 10:58:35 AM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: It was actually a much closer vote than I expected (55 to 45 I believe). This being the first southern state to get medical marijuana on the ballot, this is encouraging, especially considering there wasn't really a big push as far as advertising, etc for the measure. A lost opportunity in restrospect to be sure, but generally things are looking up across the board. I can't be too unhappy all things considered.


It also had some clauses that would have made it legal to grow your own if you live within so far of a dispensary. Which is basically a pie in the sky clauses that did nothing but sink the thing. It was going to be close anyway, so I don't understand why they didn't write a perfectly straight proposal.

Also, they didn't work with the Pharmacists Association. Hopefully they will next time.
 
2012-11-07 11:02:17 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

You're right, but I have a hunch that without a re-election to worry about, Obama may do some surprising things. I don't suspect he'll go TOO far, but he may well tell the DEA to lay off, especially on the medical frontier. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but a second term is where things can really get done, IF he works toward good things.


Unfortunately he has shown that he has a authoritarian bent. Like the MMJ issue in CA, as a relevant example,

If you think about it, the people of Colorado and Washington just thumbed their noses at the All Powerful Feds BIG TIME.

This issue is not and has never been about public health or safety, it is about the Feds being able to force their will on the States and the People - a trend that, as you may have noticed, has been increasing in many areas of American life over the past several decades.

This is a cold, defiant challenge to Federal Authoratay: If the Feds back down, they will lose face, look weak, and open the door to having many more of their asinine powers challenged.

What will they do?


Oh, do please cite this california-related authoritarian bent I've shown.
 
2012-11-07 11:02:40 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.


Go fark yourself.
 
2012-11-07 11:07:21 AM  

EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.


not if you are a "job creator"...
 
2012-11-07 11:09:22 AM  

TheSwizz: I thought you were cool, Oregon.


nope
we suck

ironically of course

/booooooo fellow oregonians ... wtf?
 
2012-11-07 11:10:50 AM  

Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?


I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore the Alabama/Florida initiatives which tried to reject it
///Go home Alabama, you're drunk.
 
2012-11-07 11:16:42 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

You're right, but I have a hunch that without a re-election to worry about, Obama may do some surprising things. I don't suspect he'll go TOO far, but he may well tell the DEA to lay off, especially on the medical frontier. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but a second term is where things can really get done, IF he works toward good things.


Unfortunately he has shown that he has a authoritarian bent. Like the MMJ issue in CA, as a relevant example,

If you think about it, the people of Colorado and Washington just thumbed their noses at the All Powerful Feds BIG TIME.

This issue is not and has never been about public health or safety, it is about the Feds being able to force their will on the States and the People - a trend that, as you may have noticed, has been increasing in many areas of American life over the past several decades.

This is a cold, defiant challenge to Federal Authoratay: If the Feds back down, they will lose face, look weak, and open the door to having many more of their asinine powers challenged.

What will they do?


4.bp.blogspot.com

so

content.internetvideoarchive.com
 
2012-11-07 11:20:32 AM  

Smackledorfer: Oh, do please cite this california-related authoritarian bent I've shown.



Are you Obama, Smackledorfer?
 
2012-11-07 11:20:50 AM  

Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore the Alabama/Flori ...


It's an interesting wrinkle. Eventually the feds are going to get involved. With as much money as there is surrounding the issue, you can bet it'll go to the supreme court. Since the current federal regulation is based on the commerce clause and the current supreme court is very conservative, it's quite possible they'll decide for the states as they have in other recent commerce clause issues.
 
2012-11-07 11:26:51 AM  

JesusJuice: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Go fark yourself.



I can't.

Yer mom has me in a scissor pinch and won't let go.
 
2012-11-07 11:29:46 AM  

rohar: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore t ...


Very fair point. Probably the biggest difference between a law student and a lawyer... I often end up thinking of things in terms of supreme courts past, rather than the current lot :-p.
 
2012-11-07 11:31:42 AM  

Amos Quito: Smackledorfer: Oh, do please cite this california-related authoritarian bent I've shown.


Are you Obama, Smackledorfer?


My bad, I misread which of Nekom's responses to me your post was responding to.
 
2012-11-07 11:31:50 AM  
And even better since the court went so far out of their way to decide the HCA as not being derived from commerce clause, so Alabama and Florida can -still- go fark themselves! =D
 
2012-11-07 11:37:20 AM  

Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore the Alabama/Flori ...


heh. Don't quit school yet. Exactly how is Amendment 64 unconstitutional? Where in the US Constitition is weed prohibition?
 
2012-11-07 11:37:26 AM  
Brings new meaning to the term "Evergreen State"

/amirite
 
2012-11-07 11:41:23 AM  
...wait.......what?...
 
2012-11-07 11:42:59 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore t ...


It isn't unconstitutional. The feds can still encforce federal law in Colorado.

Here's the thing: how many resources can the fed place there to make a difference? I think the end fight will be on the IRS v CO and not DEA v CO.

If the feds do nothing, CO goes on to actually create their retail and taxation rules and stores actually start popping up where allowed, it is possible the feds simply move MJ down a notch or two on the drug schedule.
 
2012-11-07 11:43:15 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore t ...


I guess it's because it violates the supremacy clause that states that federal law always trumps state laws that are in conflict with federal law.
 
2012-11-07 11:43:19 AM  

Venter_Of_Russ: rohar: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare i ...


Oh please don't confuse me with a lawyer, I got my GED in Law from a cracker jack box. This supreme court has been interesting to say the least. There will be at least one appointment in the next 4 years so it could go either way, all depends on timing.
 
2012-11-07 11:54:06 AM  
A great thing indeed.

Since the DEA has reaffirmed that their position on enforcement has not changed, I am anxious to see how this plays out.
 
2012-11-07 11:54:47 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Wasilla Hillbilly: It was actually a much closer vote than I expected (55 to 45 I believe). This being the first southern state to get medical marijuana on the ballot, this is encouraging, especially considering there wasn't really a big push as far as advertising, etc for the measure. A lost opportunity in restrospect to be sure, but generally things are looking up across the board. I can't be too unhappy all things considered.

It also had some clauses that would have made it legal to grow your own if you live within so far of a dispensary. Which is basically a pie in the sky clauses that did nothing but sink the thing. It was going to be close anyway, so I don't understand why they didn't write a perfectly straight proposal.

Also, they didn't work with the Pharmacists Association. Hopefully they will next time.


It's not that they didn't try to work with the Pharmacists Association...they did, but the association did not endorse issue 5.

I'm also wondering why they didn't just write a straight proposal and push for an amendment in the future. Maybe after some of my extremist Christian neighbors realized that Little Rock streets wouldn't turn into late 1980's Mogadishu when MMJ gets legalized.

As an Arkansan and an MMJ candidate that's sick of eating pills from the VA for seizures, PTSD, insomnia etc., I feel like AR just isn't responsible enough for something this progressive. Portland, OR, here I come.
 
2012-11-07 11:56:48 AM  
Purple mountain majesty!
Let freedom ring!
 
2012-11-07 12:00:36 PM  

ManRay: Since the DEA has reaffirmed that their position on enforcement has not changed, I am anxious to see how this plays out.


No-knock warrants that kill a family's pet when they go to the wrong house? Or backing off and dedicating valuable police resources to actual crime? Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama has at least SOME power to dictate DEA policy, no?
 
2012-11-07 12:05:10 PM  
Obama will find a way to fark this up, just like everything else.

Now that he is a lame duck president, he can take off the gloves and really go after those useless potheads.
 
2012-11-07 12:06:13 PM  

PluckYew: Brings new meaning to the term "Evergreen State"

/amirite


www.spaceneedle.com

New paint scheme for the Space Needle's top. Also, woo WA! Not only have we legalized pot, its very likely the measure to make gay marriage legal will pass. Still too close to call but the yes vote has a good lead.
 
2012-11-07 12:11:50 PM  
Oh goddammit.

In Montana, a proposal to restrict the use of medical marijuana was leading, 57 percent to 43 percent, with 65 percent of ballots counted, the Associated Press said.

Not that I have a card or anything (if I did I could still get it), but since I'm surrounded by new pot states, I guess I won't worry about our backassward politics on this. This is amazing if it lasts. Let's see what happens.....

In other news, it looks like Democrats took the Senate seat here, and probably the governor too, although it's still too close to call. The referenda passed were largely bassackwards too, although we did manage to declare that corporations are not people......and then decided that the feds could not impose the new health care law on Montana (unconstitutional as soon as it was written.)
 
2012-11-07 12:15:20 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Fribble: I live in Colorado and I love weed.

This has been a great morning.

This. Girlfriend said I was giddy before I left for work lol


Oh dude I was shaking with happiness last night. I've been thinking about it all morning with a perma grin on my face.

Can't wait to say "hey we're going skiing today, lets swing by the weed store and grab some niblets"

Not that it's tough to get now but I would love to not have to plan ahead to get it.
 
2012-11-07 12:15:57 PM  

Kome: "The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will," Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said in a statement. "This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly."

Lol. Nice.


Bahahahahaha! Well played, Governor Hickenlooper.
 
2012-11-07 12:17:17 PM  
On an unrelated but coincidental note, I'm moving to Washington next week. Too bad weed is one of the few aspects of the "long-haired hippie" stereotype I don't ascribe to.
 
2012-11-07 12:21:04 PM  

bbfreak: PluckYew: Brings new meaning to the term "Evergreen State"

/amirite

[www.spaceneedle.com image 525x525]

New paint scheme for the Space Needle's top. Also, woo WA! Not only have we legalized pot, its very likely the measure to make gay marriage legal will pass. Still too close to call but the yes vote has a good lead.


I heard that most of the uncounted ballots were from King county so I am encouraged that the fundies have been beaten back here in WA.
 
2012-11-07 12:21:10 PM  

nekom: ManRay: Since the DEA has reaffirmed that their position on enforcement has not changed, I am anxious to see how this plays out.

No-knock warrants that kill a family's pet when they go to the wrong house? Or backing off and dedicating valuable police resources to actual crime? Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama has at least SOME power to dictate DEA policy, no?



That's the spirit!

Damn right he does, but he won't if we don't call him to task.


/JUST SAY NO to centralized authoritarian bullying
 
2012-11-07 12:24:46 PM  

TheTrashcanMan: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!

Don't have to be a liberal/Democrat to believe in the recreational use of pot and the equality of marriage.

/Libertarian.


So, "What a GREAT day to be a lib"?
 
2012-11-07 12:26:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.


I think a little work in cognitive psychology could give us a tablet application that would help determine if a person is impaired better than any blood level screening. A little match the shapes kind of time trial, and it would be applicable across a range of depressants or sleep deprivation BECAUSE MY farkING NEIGHBORS WERE LISTENING TO MEXICAN OOMPA LOOMPA MUSIC UNTIL 4AM!.
 
2012-11-07 12:30:38 PM  
It's too bad he did not get to see this day.

img688.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-07 12:31:31 PM  
Now we just have to get Christmas declared illegal.

/baiting the fundies
 
2012-11-07 12:32:03 PM  

wildcardjack: Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

I think a little work in cognitive psychology could give us a tablet application that would help determine if a person is impaired better than any blood level screening. A little match the shapes kind of time trial, and it would be applicable across a range of depressants or sleep deprivation BECAUSE MY farkING NEIGHBORS WERE LISTENING TO MEXICAN OOMPA LOOMPA MUSIC UNTIL 4AM!.



LOL!

And speaking of Mexicans, there Dirt Weed Barons south of the border can't be too happy about the outcomes in CO and WA.
 
2012-11-07 12:37:56 PM  

MFAWG: My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?


In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.

Counties that said "Yes" on gay marriage (green):
img210.imageshack.us

Counties that said "Yes" to pot:
img13.imageshack.us

Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.

That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.
 
2012-11-07 12:38:19 PM  

wildcardjack: Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

I think a little work in cognitive psychology could give us a tablet application that would help determine if a person is impaired better than any blood level screening. A little match the shapes kind of time trial, and it would be applicable across a range of depressants or sleep deprivation BECAUSE MY farkING NEIGHBORS WERE LISTENING TO MEXICAN OOMPA LOOMPA MUSIC UNTIL 4AM!.


I will take eleventeen bong hits and ace your little cognitive test. ;)

Object oriented programming is so much more fun & creative when you have an attitude adjuster.
 
2012-11-07 12:44:10 PM  
Weeeeeeeeddddd.
 
2012-11-07 12:49:21 PM  
I can see the promotions now. Buy a 12-pack of Bud and get a free bud.
 
2012-11-07 12:49:28 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

In Massachusetts, residents approved a measure to allow medical use, while Arkansas voters rejected such a proposal.

You stupid f*cks.

Seriously. For medical use and you say no? F*ck yourselves. All of you.


Yeah, Not only for medical use only but the most restrictive medical use of any state. It was close...closer than I would have thought from a populous mostly concerned with "God, Guns, and Gynecology."

Most of the against votes were out of either ignorance (and/or stupidity) or protecting self interests (Cops/Doctors/Pharmacists).
 
2012-11-07 12:54:37 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: MFAWG: My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?

In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.

Counties that said "Yes" on gay marriage (green):
[img210.imageshack.us image 633x414]

Counties that said "Yes" to pot:
[img13.imageshack.us image 638x413]

Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.

That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.


Am proudly in Thurston county where we voted yes on both! Woo! :) I'm straight and don't smoke weed but voted yes for both.
 
2012-11-07 12:59:14 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh:
In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.
Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.
That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.


You're blaming pot smokers for that? Get a farking grip. You are aware that a lot of the people who voted for legal weed aren't smokers, right?
 
2012-11-07 12:59:23 PM  

nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


I'm going to qualify that...as it's a great day to be a social liberal.
 
2012-11-07 01:03:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.


So much this!

My company doesn't do drug testing. They long figured out that our consultants are prima donnas that probably do illegal narcotics from time to time. So long as they perform, the company doesn't care.
 
2012-11-07 01:03:24 PM  
George Washington toked weed.
 
2012-11-07 01:04:14 PM  

eurotrader: What I hope CO and Washington will cause by passing rec use is the Federal government to actually do something sensible. The 13.7 billion dollars a years spent enforcing an idiotic laws could be better use on programs to help people instead of ruining lives. Already have a red card so this is just a good thing.


Me too, and it needs to be renewed in February so this might save me some coin :)
 
2012-11-07 01:21:11 PM  

slayer199: Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

So much this!

My company doesn't do drug testing. They long figured out that our consultants are prima donnas that probably do illegal narcotics from time to time. So long as they perform, the company doesn't care.


I've worked for hospitals and the Feds - so long as you don't give them a reason to drug-test you, they won't. It's costly, it's invasive (I think people outside wage-slavery understand that you really don't need to examine someone's urine to figure out of they're good workers), it's time-consuming (I couldn't start at the hospital until I passed, but that's somewhat understandable), and it might cost you some valuable people (how many of us know productive cokeheads?) in a random screening.

The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.
 
2012-11-07 01:24:12 PM  

Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.


Why are you still here?
 
2012-11-07 01:29:38 PM  

ravenlore: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Why are you still here?


Why would he leave? I have it on his authority that he is the only farker who understands the constitution.
 
2012-11-07 01:37:53 PM  

Amos Quito: JesusJuice: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Go fark yourself.


I can't.

Yer mom has me in a scissor pinch and won't let go.


Is this the butt-hurt that I've heard so much about? You sound soooooo pissed.
 
2012-11-07 01:57:54 PM  

Smackledorfer: ravenlore: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Why are you still here?

Why would he leave? I have it on his authority that he is the only farker who understands the constitution.



Damn straight.
 
2012-11-07 02:40:51 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.


As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.
 
2012-11-07 02:44:13 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: MFAWG: My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?

In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.

Counties that said "Yes" on gay marriage (green):
[img210.imageshack.us image 633x414]

Counties that said "Yes" to pot:
[img13.imageshack.us image 638x413]

Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.

That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.


People's assumptions about pot smokers is that they are all liberal, and you are wrong. Most of the counties in that graphic are rural. All it shows you that "Good ole Christian Value" types like to burn one down from time to time. Don't pretend you thought that anyone east of the mountains or south of Olympia were ever going to vote to let gays marry. I was impressed that all those Republican counties voted for legal weed.
 
2012-11-07 02:47:54 PM  
On the one hand, I've always believed that pot should be treated like alcohol and tobacco, ie: legalized, taxed, regulated. On the other hand, I fail to see people getting in line to put down in writing and submitting to the government that they run a business based on violating federal drug trafficking laws. In a practical sense, legalizing home growing is better until federal law is changed.
 
2012-11-07 03:29:45 PM  
currently searching google for conferences being held in Colorado and Washington...
 
2012-11-07 04:50:51 PM  

slayer199: Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.


I come to work stoned all the time. I hardly ever mess up the pickles and onions on those burgers...I mean, I must have at least a 50% condiment to bun success ratio.

/...
 
2012-11-07 05:02:33 PM  

slayer199: Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.


Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!
 
2012-11-07 05:15:36 PM  

ifarkthereforiam: I can see the promotions now. Buy a 12-pack of Bud and get a free bud.


Frankly, I hope they take the Dutch stance on this and not allow places that sell or serve alcohol the ability to sell weed. Alcohol x Weed = Really Drunk, Really Fast.
 
2012-11-07 05:27:30 PM  

yousaywut: Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.


I've seen some estimates of over a billion dollars in yearly revenue from legalizing mary jane in those 2 states
 
2012-11-07 05:28:47 PM  

yousaywut: slayer199: Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!


You'll hate the commute; some days it takes an hour to go 15 miles. Who knew north westerners couldn't drive? Especially in the rain!!

...besides...we're full.

At least Jeff Smith got his ass handed to him.
 
2012-11-07 05:50:04 PM  
I-502 doesn't go into effect until 12/1/2013 (from what I can tell). The Liquor Control Board(I know, ironic...) has to set up the permitting and infrastructure so we can't actually enjoy our freedom for another year... Anyone hear different?
 
2012-11-07 05:57:42 PM  
Several states passed laws preventing the implementation of Obamacare.

State Rights will be front and center for SCOTUS next year.
 
2012-11-07 05:59:37 PM  

PluckYew: yousaywut: slayer199: Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!

You'll hate the commute; some days it takes an hour to go 15 miles. Who knew north westerners couldn't drive? Especially in the rain!!

...besides...we're full.

At least Jeff Smith got his ass handed to him.


What full damn it man:( That's ok I have friends who have already offered rooms until Oregon gets it's shiat together. Besides with all the extra cash inflo Wa will be looking pretty good for other reasons.

//Yes I know the commute sux but it is better than the one I had in Ma.
 
2012-11-07 06:20:42 PM  
If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.
 
2012-11-07 06:31:25 PM  

stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.


Just don't drive back with the weed. I can foresee Oregon cops doing random checks on the crossings and a lot of people going to jail for interstate smuggling of illegal weeds.

//In other words be careful.
 
2012-11-07 06:35:46 PM  

yousaywut: slayer199: Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!


The Oregon measure wasn't crafted very well. The pro-pot folks with money decided to back the ones in WA and CO, as they felt there was a better chance of success. I think the measure did pretty damn good considering there was almost no advertising that I saw.

Besides, like you said, we're just across the river. It's easy enough to get in OR as it is, but once it's legally sold in WA next year, so much the better for us.

I'm a bit curious on the DUI limit that the law set for stoned drivers in WA, and heard some reports that a hardcore stoner could always be at risk of DUI, sober or not.
 
2012-11-07 06:44:52 PM  

stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.


The DEA doesn't have the resources (only 5000 agents) to go after marijuana. Yes, the federal government can go after the state...but the Controlled Substances Act is going to be tested by the courts if it does.

Prohibition was passed (and repealed) via a Constitutional Amendment...which is a difficult process. Not so with the Controlled Substances Act. The People will have the final say on this....the electorate is speaking...and politicians better start listening (and on same-sex marriage as well).
 
2012-11-07 07:06:49 PM  

yousaywut: stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.

Just don't drive back with the weed. I can foresee Oregon cops doing random checks on the crossings and a lot of people going to jail for interstate smuggling of illegal weeds.

//In other words be careful.


Appreciate the advice, but I don't think you're from OR. It's already decriminalized to possess under an ounce. So, there really isn't any benefit for OR cops to stop bridge crossers. I know some Portland PD; they don't give a shiat. People smoke weed on the riverfront in plain view of the Precinct. WA only legalized 1 oz; you can't be jailed for that in OR.

Basically what I'm saying is: it's already legal here in OR, just can't yet walk into a store and get some (without a medical card).

What I'm worried about is the WA cops. With their weird new pot DUI law, I'm probably guilty without smoking. I don't understand it yet, so I'm waiting to see how the cops respond.
 
2012-11-07 07:26:43 PM  

stewbert: yousaywut: stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.

Just don't drive back with the weed. I can foresee Oregon cops doing random checks on the crossings and a lot of people going to jail for interstate smuggling of illegal weeds.

//In other words be careful.

Appreciate the advice, but I don't think you're from OR. It's already decriminalized to possess under an ounce. So, there really isn't any benefit for OR cops to stop bridge crossers. I know some Portland PD; they don't give a shiat. People smoke weed on the riverfront in plain view of the Precinct. WA only legalized 1 oz; you can't be jailed for that in OR.

Basically what I'm saying is: it's already legal here in OR, just can't yet walk into a store and get some (without a medical card).

What I'm worried about is the WA cops. With their weird new pot DUI law, I'm probably guilty without smoking. I don't understand it yet, so I'm waiting to see how the cops respond.


I live in Hillsboro just south of portland. so that's an incorrect thought. I don't know the law regarding MJ and what is or is not illegal so that could be good and true. I stopped smoking a long time ago so I haven't kept up with the laws. I would start again if it were legal.

//Allergic to alcohol so I can't even enjoy a beer:(
 
2012-11-07 08:23:46 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Pot smokers are dicks.


Go fark yourself.
 
2012-11-07 08:27:07 PM  

nmemkha: Several states passed laws preventing the implementation of Obamacare.


They can pay taxes for my state to implement Obamacare AND pay regular insurance premiums on top of that cost. I don't mind.
 
2012-11-07 09:43:56 PM  
low comment count in this one... everybody must be off enjoying themselves. i say, good for them.

/don't smoke but hellz yeah for this long overdue step!
 
2012-11-07 10:00:45 PM  

slayer199: Prohibition was passed (and repealed) via a Constitutional Amendment...which is a difficult process. Not so with the Controlled Substances Act. The People will have the final say on this....the electorate is speaking...and politicians better start listening (and on same-sex marriage as well).


THIS

Why was a constitutional amendment passed for prohibition? Because a constitutional amendment was REQUIRED. Otherwise the feds had NO constitutional jurisdiction to intervene.

The Controlled Substances Act, OTOH, was slipped in under the Commerce Clause. The Constitution was side-stepped, and supported by activist courts.

The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act, or any of the other laws that were enacted under the same guise.

This does not necessarily mean that all of the laws, bureaus, agencies (etc) that were extraconstitutionally created are necessarily bad, but it does mean that they are illegitimate, and should be defanged until such time that they are vetted through the channels that are prescribed in the constitution, or the constitution is amended.

$.02
 
2012-11-07 10:56:23 PM  

Amos Quito: The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act


The supreme court, how does it work?

Believe it or not, the founding fathers, who wrote the constitution that you believe you are the sole interpreter of, set up a body appointed by the presidents to determine the constitutionality of things. You are welcome to dislike their interpretations, but the very fact that they make a judgement that something is constitutional makes it... wait for it... constitutional. Things may be slipped in under an expanding interpretation of the commerce clause, but that's just the way it goes.

I don't know why this seems such a confusing concept for people. You move dangerously close to tea-party territory when you head in that direction.
 
2012-11-07 11:25:02 PM  

Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act

The supreme court, how does it work?

Believe it or not, the founding fathers, who wrote the constitution that you believe you are the sole interpreter of, set up a body appointed by the presidents to determine the constitutionality of things. You are welcome to dislike their interpretations, but the very fact that they make a judgement that something is constitutional makes it... wait for it... constitutional. Things may be slipped in under an expanding interpretation of the commerce clause, but that's just the way it goes.

I don't know why this seems such a confusing concept for people. You move dangerously close to tea-party territory when you head in that direction.


I think that Amos was talking about the questionable legality of the law under the Constitution, irrespective of how the Supreme Court decided. The Commerce Clause was meant to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.

Under Gonzalez v. Raich the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it WAS within Congress' right to regulate intrastate commerce under a class of activities that have economic impact. Ironically, it was the conservative justices that dissented (Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor).

Since Justice Thomas is usually ripped on Fark, This is what he said:

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

and

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers - as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause - have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

and

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

I believe the times are changing for the simple reason that people are seeing that the War on Drugs is a failure. I don't smoke pot (I haven't in 20 years) nor would I if it was legalized (not my thing). But I passionately support the right of others to do so.

If enough states pass laws legalize pot, Congress will be forced to deal with it. The DEA doesn't have enough agents to enforce state law. That being said, I can't see a lot of people rushing to sell pot through state regulation because of the risk that the Feds will come down on the operator under federal law.
 
2012-11-07 11:47:42 PM  

slayer199: I think that Amos was talking about the questionable legality of the law under the Constitution, irrespective of how the Supreme Court decided.


You can't have one without the other is all I'm saying. You can't throw out the supreme court when you don't agree with them, and certainly can't throw them out when you don't like them, all while asserting that your interpretation lies closer to the founding fathers (and lets face it, they held slaves among other things, they weren't some kind of gods among men). The founders may have had a different plan for the commerce clause, but they had a very clear plan for the supreme court's function.

So Amos would what, throw out/ignore the surpreme court in order to make sure the commerce clause stayed true? That is nonsensical.

/legalize it
 
2012-11-08 12:12:44 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Pot smokers are dicks.

Go fark yourself.


Don't speak for everyone here; I'm a pot smoker and I'm a Dick.
 
2012-11-08 07:46:49 AM  

Smackledorfer: The founders may have had a different plan for the commerce clause, but they had a very clear plan for the supreme court's function.


I don't believe the framers intended the Commerce Clause to cover anything that the federal government wanted to regulate. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court's decision isn't legal and binding...it is.
 
Displayed 129 of 129 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report