legalize it already

[jaja111]

Here in Washington Referendum 502 stated:

"Initiative Measure No. 502 Concerns Marijuana

Washington Ballot Measure / Referendum

November 6, 2012 Washington General Election

Description: Initiative Measure No. 502 concerns marijuana. This measure would license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over twenty-one; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax marijuana sales; and earmark marijuana-related revenues. " (vote-wa.org)

It wasn't just the decriminalization of up to one ounce of marijuana, however many news outlets purported it to be, reporting on only a third of the story. No, I don't think the feds will be busting Joe Schmoe with a bag of doobage, but they will have something to say about licensing, regulation, and taxation. This will be entertaining legal battling for some time.

 

[ScottySkis]

I'm not sure of the language of the specific laws, but I was under the impression, that these newly passed laws merely decriminalize possession of an ounce (or some other amount). Meaning that the states will no longer prosecute people for possession. The Feds can do whatever they want....but when was the last time that you heard of a Federal prosecution for possession of an ounce. Plus, I believe the Feds have directives under Obama's Justice Dept. to not prosecute possession only distribution. The Feds can, if they are so inclined, prosecute someone for possession under the Federal laws, but after last night, it seems that may be at least 4 years into our future.

In the last 2 years the Obama administration has closed more medicine MJ shops then the Bush administration did in 8 years. Obama told Colorado owners of legal shops one thing and did another, he has closed down a lot of those shops. In my opinion it was revenge for going on tv and talking about it, this is a big part of lies so he can look good to the voters.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[riverc0il]

Any one have any numbers on what the projected revenues would be if the Feds dropped the class 1 crap and allowed for all states to regulate and tax sale? One would wonder if just allowing for distribution of MJ and taxing it would provide a substantial closing of every state level budget gap in the country? Heck, the feds could take a slice of it as well...

 

[skiNEwhere]

I live in Colorado but I still can't smoke it since it is not federally legal. If I did, I would lose my security clearance

 

[drjeff]

Sounds like the classic case when it all comes down to it where the will and desire to make things legal will end up resulting eventually in enough regulations about it will actually end up being far more expensive than it used to be.

In my big picture view of things, I could possibly see how this issue could eventually help sway a few folks with a current liberal leaning point of view to more of a libertarian point of view, and that's a GOOD thing in my mind.

 

[hammer]

OK...so why do people who use recreationally care about medical marijuana laws?

 

[drjeff]

OK...so why do people who use recreationally care about medical marijuana laws?

Since Washington State and Colorado just passed laws legalizing its recreational use. Still a federal crime, but on the state level it's set to be legal. That entire Federal rights vs. State's rights issue is an entirely different issue

 

[JimG.]

OK...so why do people who use recreationally care about medical marijuana laws?

I think most people have "medical issues" that would qualify for a medical MJ card.

I'm feeling a little depressed today. My arthritis is acting up. I have glaucoma. My hands are always cold.

I think you get the picture.

 

[witch hobble]

If I did, I would lose my security clearance

I could see losing your car keys or cell phone, but whoa........that's heavy!

 

[witch hobble]

OK...so why do people who use recreationally care about medical marijuana laws?

There is some empathy involved, but it also has to do with acceptance and a path to decriminalization. Sort of the inverse of "why does the hunter who keeps a rifle for deer season, or to intimidate his daughter's boyfriend, feel the need to oppose an assault rifle ban or any change in gun laws?". Because they view it as a first step towards something more broad.

 

[hammer]

I think most people have "medical issues" that would qualify for a medical MJ card.

I'm feeling a little depressed today. My arthritis is acting up. I have glaucoma. My hands are always cold.

I think you get the picture.

I'm not too crazy about that actually...not unlike me going to my Dr. and trying to get a prescription for Adderall just because I'm a little tired and can't focus.

My guess is that getting medical marijuana approved is just a stepping stone to the real objective which is full legalization. OK...

 

[JimG.]

I'm not too crazy about that actually...not unlike me going to my Dr. and trying to get a prescription for Adderall just because I'm a little tired and can't focus.

My guess is that getting medical marijuana approved is just a stepping stone to the real objective which is full legalization. OK...

I wasn't making that comment flippantly...I certainly understand your concern here. BTW, many folks go to the doctor and demand prescriptions and many doctors write them. My dad is a retired pediatrician who had stories daily of patients whose parents demanded antibiotics or other self diagnosed prescriptions. He refused such demands. Filling them is a good way to lose your license to practice.


The states are stepping up and trying to force the fed to legalize or at least overlook prosecution because this is a valid way for many of them to close budget gaps.

 

[Nick]

OK...so why do people who use recreationally care about medical marijuana laws?

I think (unfortunately) it's pretty easy to find a doctor to fill a "prescription".

My sister in law is a pharmaceutical sales rep from the stories she tells me, I can't believe the kind of things that influence doctors when it comes to what he actually writes on a script.

I wonder if the pharmaceutical industry wil get involved... can't you see the TV ads now ...

"Pottercal .... please consult your physicial before taking pottercal. Side effects may include munchies, uncontrolled laughter, thinking you are on the moon, or extreme paranoia. Pottercall is not for everyone. People who use Alcohol should not combine it with Pottercall. For more information, see our add in Parents Magazine. Pottercol.... isn't it time you stopped dealing with reality?"

 

[thetrailboss]

If it has not been posted...

 

[riverc0il]

Sounds like the classic case when it all comes down to it where the will and desire to make things legal will end up resulting eventually in enough regulations about it will actually end up being far more expensive than it used to be.

In my big picture view of things, I could possibly see how this issue could eventually help sway a few folks with a current liberal leaning point of view to more of a libertarian point of view, and that's a GOOD thing in my mind.

The problem with so called libertarian points of view is many that claim to be libertarians don't fully embrace all libertarian ideals, especially those conflict with so called conservative "values". Many people think freedoms should only entail the values that they themselves subscribe to, not all of them. It is a difficult plank to walk off without being intellectually dishonest.

But back to your example about regulations driving up prices... two comments: first, legalization with regulation could result in lower prices due to economies of scale. Also, some of the price on drugs is due to its illicit nature, i.e. prices wouldn't be as high if sellers didn't face risks (i.e. they need more money to justify the risk of getting in trouble with the law). Second, even if it costed more, I think many people would prefer to pay a little more and do so legally in exchange for not having to be covert.

 

[drjeff]

The problem with so called libertarian points of view is many that claim to be libertarians don't fully embrace all libertarian ideals, especially those conflict with so called conservative "values". Many people think freedoms should only entail the values that they themselves subscribe to, not all of them. It is a difficult plank to walk off without being intellectually dishonest.

But back to your example about regulations driving up prices... two comments: first, legalization with regulation could result in lower prices due to economies of scale. Also, some of the price on drugs is due to its illicit nature, i.e. prices wouldn't be as high if sellers didn't face risks (i.e. they need more money to justify the risk of getting in trouble with the law). Second, even if it costed more, I think many people would prefer to pay a little more and do so legally in exchange for not having to be covert.

Given the current state of most state's budget situations, I'd think that a good starting point tax wise would be what tobacco is taxed at - the consumer is used to that, the states are used to that, etc, and then go from there. The bottomline to most legislators, is anything they can tax ='s more money so they can dole out more "free stuff" to their constituents in an attempt to keep their job :smash:

Then price wise, since it's a private business that would be selling (once they pay for their presumed state permit to allow them to sell), and i'm guessing that the business owner might just have a hunch at what his/her potential customers were paying before the law passed to acquire it, that they've got their starting price point.

Eventually might the economy of scale factor kick and and lower prices?? Sure But the reality likely is that MJ users in CO and WA will be paying more than they were before. And with the exception of maybe April 20th, I wouldn't be expecting any discount sales on any sort of regular basis Bottomline, most business people are in business (of whatever nature) to make money, and if and when the business starts taking off, they're going to work to make a bigger profit. And most governmental agencies, when they see a chance to regulate something, they see a chance to bring in more tax dollars so they can then turn around and spend more tax dollars

 

[RootDKJ]

Any one have any numbers on what the projected revenues would be if the Feds dropped the class 1 crap and allowed for all states to regulate and tax sale? One would wonder if just allowing for distribution of MJ and taxing it would provide a substantial closing of every state level budget gap in the country? Heck, the feds could take a slice of it as well...

I've seen numbers (that I can't find right now, but will look for later) that's it's somewhere in the $450B to $700B a year when you factor in enforcement, court and prison costs.

 

[ScottySkis]

The problem with so called libertarian points of view is many that claim to be libertarians don't fully embrace all libertarian ideals, especially those conflict with so called conservative "values". Many people think freedoms should only entail the values that they themselves subscribe to, not all of them. It is a difficult plank to walk off without being intellectually dishonest.

But back to your example about regulations driving up prices... two comments: first, legalization with regulation could result in lower prices due to economies of scale. Also, some of the price on drugs is due to its illicit nature, i.e. prices wouldn't be as high if sellers didn't face risks (i.e. they need more money to justify the risk of getting in trouble with the law). Second, even if it costed more, I think many people would prefer to pay a little more and do so legally in exchange for not having to be covert.

I'm very much into liberal ideals


Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[deadheadskier]

Any one have any numbers on what the projected revenues would be if the Feds dropped the class 1 crap and allowed for all states to regulate and tax sale? One would wonder if just allowing for distribution of MJ and taxing it would provide a substantial closing of every state level budget gap in the country? Heck, the feds could take a slice of it as well...

Washington State estimates $2B over 5 years. Washington is a very small state. Project those estimates nationally and it's a big chunk of change. That said, I don't see it closing any state budget gaps. Without getting too political, it seems pretty obvious that the more money government takes in, the more they spend. There really hasn't been much effort in balancing government budgets in my lifetime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/pot-could-be-tax-windfall_0_n_1897910.html

 

[ScottySkis]

Washington State estimates $2B over 5 years. Washington is a very small state. Project those estimates nationally and it's a big chunk of change. That said, I don't see it closing any state budget gaps. Without getting too political, it seems pretty obvious that the more money government takes in, the more they spend. There really hasn't been much effort in balancing government budgets in my lifetime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/pot-could-be-tax-windfall_0_n_1897910.html

+1 our politicians spend spend and spend, It's really sad when you think about it.


Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2