• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

House to Introduce Bill Ending Federal Marijuana Ban

Will the bill pass?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.4%
  • No

    Votes: 56 76.7%
  • Don't Care / Don't Know

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • Total voters
    73
The police around here are similarly awesome, at least in Ann Arbor (NOT the university cops). One officer told me "Look, we really don't have a problem with this, just stay at home or sit on your porch and smoke it. As long as you aren't out on public streets or in a place like [a city park], I'll drive on by without a second glance. We know it's harmless and it's not something we'll go after unless we have to for some other reason."

Then I got a $25 ticket, which I overpaid by $10 accidentally - so the AAPD sent a refund check to my parents house since I was in college at the time and that was the address on my license. Cue my mom's phone call - "You got a letter from the Ann Arbor Police, so we opened it... and they sent a check for ten dollars?" "Yeah, I got a ticket there over break, I guess I misheard the amount and paid too much, Mom." :shifty:
 
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) will introduce legislation on Thursday to end the federal ban on marijuana and let the states decide whether to legalize it.

Talk about strange bedfellows.

Any potential backlash for Frank on this one given his BF was busted for possession a few years back? I kind of doubt it given that his role as a national political leader significantly overshadows this sort of thing and since his constituency doesn’t care whether or not his BF smokes grass.
 
In California, possession of less than an ounce is "decriminalized." I.e., it is an infraction, for which you get a ticket and a fine, and then you get to go along on your merry way without anything on your record. Similar to a speeding ticket. (Actually it is less than a speeding ticket since a speeding ticket goes on your driving record.) However California was late to the decriminalization game. Many states did this before California, contrary to the classic stereotype of hippy-dippy Californians smoking grass up and down the west coast.

Many cities such as Oakland and San Francisco also have written policies identifying cannabis enforcement as the lowest priority compared to all other crimes. For instance, if a cop saw a J-walker and a guy smoking a doobie, technically according to his DGOs (department general orders) he should deal with the j-walker first and the party-person second.
 
Is U.S. the only country in the world where you can have a state law that contradicts federal law.. and where the state can say "Yeah okay, that's a fine" and the feds can say "off to jail for 10 years with your arse"? I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of outdated laws being on the books but never enforced, but this stuff is enforced.. and it's a big deal! Seriously wondering, cause that would never happen in Canada. I don't think?
 
Well, it's rather insulting, but a common joke I've heard is that all the drug users in California are so high they're unable to go out and vote for legalisation/decriminalisation/looser restrictions. :lol: Of course, that joke has that silly assumption that to support a group's rights, you must be a member of it... i.e. my grandmother always asks if I'm gay because I support gay marriage. If she wasn't my grandmother I'd just tell her I had respect for others' lifestyles unlike her. But that's off-topic.

Either way, I do hope this happens. It would be a great step towards reducing the stake of organised crime and improving freedom overall.

What's worst, however, is coke: It is DEFINITELY dangerous, yet is the major contributor to cartel funding. What do we do about that? While legalisation of marijuana won't change much if anything, cocaine legalisation I'd be far more worried about because of how addictive and destructive it is.

Marijuana is easy to use passively as I recall, whereas coke can hook you on the first try... and if you thought quitting cancer sticks was hard, quitting cocaine is even harder.

My cousin is currently in rehab for heroin addiction... not sure how that will go. Heroin is cocaine's slightly-shifted statistics cousin, after all.
 
Is U.S. the only country in the world where you can have a state law that contradicts federal law.. and where the state can say "Yeah okay, that's a fine" and the feds can say "off to jail for 10 years with your arse"? I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of outdated laws being on the books but never enforced, but this stuff is enforced.. and it's a big deal! Seriously wondering, cause that would never happen in Canada. I don't think?

State laws cannot mandate activity forbidden by the federal government, and States cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law. The Feds, for their part, cannot direct States to enforce Federal law, and instead must rely on things like withholding much needed federal money for highway funding. Kind of like bribes. It does seem confusing but "contradiction" is not the problem, so much as "preemption." E.g. see this article for more on that vis a vis medical cannabis.

This means the Feds can arrest folks in California but California does not have to adopt the same drug laws as the federal government. On the same token, California can enforce, or refuse to enforce whatever laws it pleases so long as it does not actively mandate activity proscribed by federal law or prevent the Feds from enforcing their own laws. E.g. if Jerry Brown mandated that every Californian smoke a joint everyday, that would be preempted by federal law. If Jerry Brown tells California Highway Patrol to stop arresting drivers in possession of cannabis with a medical recommendation, the Federal Government can basically do nothing, other than perhaps withhold federal money.
 
Err, right now yes, but keep in mind street price is greatly inflated due to it being illegal, black market goods always cost more due to the risk incurred by the growers/sellers. When and if it's legalized the street price will stabilize to a lower rate. I understand what you're saying at base though and you're right, the state government could impose stiff taxes on it and the price would still be less than what people pay for it right now. Depending on how the bill is worded though we'll see, people might just start growing their own and we might not end up with "big marijuana" companies like with tobacco.
Good comment.

The only thing I like to add is that it is a possibility that a legal framework can be made in support for state regulated companies to legally cultivate and distribute marijuana with strict tax codes and licenses. While forbidding home cultivation and sales without any taxes getting in the way of the exchange.

I for one rather have people have the freedom to grow their own and sell it whoever they want. But I think the other way would appeal to many people who favor for more tax revenue for their state if it is legal and controlled somewhat.
 
because it would still beat making nothing! Unless the goverment set the price so low as to totally eliminate a profit margin (unlikely, since a major political reason to legalize pot is to tax and generate funds), people will still want to get into the market.

You see, I'm just not buying that. The reason why people sell weed (illegally) now is because it's worth SO much money due to the fact that it's illegal.

There's also the fact that the vast majority of dealers don't grow their own (middlemen), and more or less sell weed strictly to support their own massive weed habits, essentially to smoke for free.

If weed is legal, where are these middlemen going to find someone illegally growing pounds upon pounds of the stuff? Who would be willing to invest such time and effort for such little returns? Why would stoner dealers who only sell to support their habit go through such trouble, instead of growing a few plants to smoke in their closet? There's no way after legalization that weed will be worth anywhere close to $500-600 an ounce, since supply will increase.

It is hard to secretly brew beer on a large enough scale for it to be economically viable to illegally sell beer. Beer is cheap, plentiful, and people haven't had to smuggle it for 90 years. it isn't worth the effort to try to make illegal beer to get around alcohol taxes.

Everything you said here would apply to legalized pot. Except, in some parts of this country (the west coast primarily) weed is already cheap and plentiful, if not illegal. It will be even more so when it's legalized.

It isn't hard to grow pot. Your individual profit margin is going to be higher.

It isn't hard to grow mediocre or crappy pot, yes. However, growing the most potent, best tasting and seedless marijuana (the kind that people like to smoke and will pay big money for) does indeed take a lot of time, effort and knowledge. Those guys you hear about on the news with an illegal grow house full of hundreds of plants, or a field with thousands of plants? That was the end result of lots of initial investment (grow lights, fans, irrigation, seeds, pots, climate control, pest control, etc.) and a lot of work both setting it up and maintaining it. Then there's the fact that you need to worry about not getting busted, which involves masking the enormously pungent smell that hundreds of weed plants can produce. No small task, to be sure.

That's an incredible amount of work, and the only reason people do such things nowadays is because they know they could potentially be millionaires when it's through. If weed were legal, that wouldn't be the case.

I mean, you can legally buy porn in any gas station, but tons of people still torrent it (even if thats a little harder or riskier to your computer). Same with movies or music.

That analogy doesn't work, since you can't exactly torrent a bag of pot. If such a thing could be done, I'd gladly do it.:lol:

Besides, we've already discussed how much of a hassle it is to deal with street dealers. If you're trying to get some weed, which would you rather do? Sit around texting someone, waiting for their response, possibly waiting another hour or so in order to meet up with them and then buying a product which is unknown in terms of quality and strain. Or, go right now to a store like the ones in California and Amsterdam where you know exactly which strain it is, how potent it is and how it was grown. In addition, that store probably carries hashish and marijuana edibles that very few street dealers can get their hands on.

I'm not saying don't legalize pot. I'm just saying, don't expect it to wipe out the illegal pot trade, or make the state a ton of money.

It will make the state a considerable amount of money, and more or less totally wipe out the illegal pot trade.
 
That analogy doesn't work, since you can't exactly torrent a bag of pot. If such a thing could be done, I'd gladly do it.:lol:
LOL love downtown, but that comparison was definitely absurd.

Besides, we've already discussed how much of a hassle it is to deal with street dealers. If you're trying to get some weed, which would you rather do? Sit around texting someone, waiting for their response, possibly waiting another hour or so in order to meet up with them and then buying a product which is unknown in terms of quality and strain. Or, go right now to a store and buy weed where you know exactly which strain it is, how potent and how it was grown. In addition, that store probably carries hashish and marijuana edibles that very few street dealers can get their hands on.
I would love to get hashish and some brownies. It is hard to get, especially the latter because most people don't want to waste a lot of weed to make the butter, and such.
 
State laws cannot mandate activity forbidden by the federal government, and States cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law. The Feds, for their part, cannot direct States to enforce Federal law, and instead must rely on things like withholding much needed federal money for highway funding. Kind of like bribes. It does seem confusing but "contradiction" is not the problem, so much as "preemption." E.g. see this article for more on that vis a vis medical cannabis.

This means the Feds can arrest folks in California but California does not have to adopt the same drug laws as the federal government. On the same token, California can enforce, or refuse to enforce whatever laws it pleases so long as it does not actively mandate activity proscribed by federal law or prevent the Feds from enforcing their own laws. E.g. if Jerry Brown mandated that every Californian smoke a joint everyday, that would be preempted by federal law. If Jerry Brown tells California Highway Patrol to stop arresting drivers in possession of cannabis with a medical recommendation, the Federal Government can basically do nothing, other than perhaps withhold federal money.

Didn't the President say something along the lines of that if a state legalizes Marijuana the Fed wont go after people with it as long as the people are doing it legally by state standards?

Basically Marijuana isn't being enforced against, unless you're in a really nice area
 
It shouldn't pass, we need to limit drugs. Really, they should focus more on cigarette bans.

I cite to you the 18th and 21st Amendments.

Prohibition doesn't work and all it does is enrich organised crime.
 
Didn't the President say something along the lines of that if a state legalizes Marijuana the Fed wont go after people with it as long as the people are doing it legally by state standards?

Basically Marijuana isn't being enforced against, unless you're in a really nice area

Obama has also said he "will not lift a finger" to assist medical cannabis advocates in their push to soften Federal enforcement or de-schedule cannabis altogether. I get the impression Obama really does not care about this issue at all and (Holder's) policy conveniently allows the Feds to dictate on their terms what is and is not legal under State law.

Practically speaking the Feds will still provide whatever assistance any State law enforcement agency asks for in regards to marijuana busts. So if Los Angeles, for instance, asks for DEA assistance in raiding West Hollywood Medical Cannabis collectives, the DEA will be happy to oblige.

The Feds can still swoop in at any time and raid whoever they choose. Conservative law enforcement agencies such as the LA or Santa Clara County Sheriffs' Departments will still aggressively attack cannabis cultivation and trafficking. Collective operators and cannabis cultivators still remain in a sort of limbo where a giant axe remains over their head, with a vague promises that it will not be dropped if they fulfill certain criteria that conflicts from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and where the Feds refuse to provide any clear guidance as to what they consider "following state law." This creates a cruel catch 22 where you operate in a legal limbo, but where in order to be "legal" you must still stick your neck out where it can be easily chopped off. This is almost worse than simply knowing that what you are doing is illegal and remaining hidden in the black market. It's an interesting time to say the least.
 
Obama has also said he "will not lift a finger" to assist medical cannabis advocates in their push to soften Federal enforcement or de-schedule cannabis altogether. I get the impression Obama really does not care about this issue at all and (Holder's) policy conveniently allows the Feds to dictate on their terms what is and is not legal under State law.

Practically speaking the Feds will still provide whatever assistance any State law enforcement agency asks for in regards to marijuana busts. So if Los Angeles, for instance, asks for DEA assistance in raiding West Hollywood Medical Cannabis collectives, the DEA will be happy to oblige.

The Feds can still swoop in at any time and raid whoever they choose. Conservative law enforcement agencies such as the LA or Santa Clara County Sheriffs' Departments will still aggressively attack cannabis cultivation and trafficking. Collective operators and cannabis cultivators still remain in a sort of limbo where a giant axe remains over their head, with a vague promises that it will not be dropped if they fulfill certain criteria that conflicts from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and where the Feds refuse to provide any clear guidance as to what they consider "following state law." This creates a cruel catch 22 where you operate in a legal limbo, but where in order to be "legal" you must still stick your neck out where it can be easily chopped off. This is almost worse than simply knowing that what you are doing is illegal and remaining hidden in the black market. It's an interesting time to say the least.

Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

This court case makes things even more complicated.
 
It's an old case and it's not a great case for medical cannabis advocates, but in the grand scheme of things it fits in neatly with everything I already said. The Feds can ban it all they want, and they can enforce those bans all they want. But as it stands they cannot prevent States from enacting medical cannabis laws like California's. I.e., they are limited in what they can directly force States to do.
 
Many cities such as Oakland and San Francisco also have written policies identifying cannabis enforcement as the lowest priority compared to all other crimes. For instance, if a cop saw a J-walker and a guy smoking a doobie, technically according to his DGOs (department general orders) he should deal with the j-walker first and the party-person second.

Yes, this is the case in SC as well. Beat patrol is even prioritized over marijuana enforcement.
 
Then I would say the constitutionality of the CSA should be challenged and if the SCOTUS rules in the feds' favor, replace the SCOTUS judges.

Replace SCOTUS judges? Ack...

They are well-nigh impossible to replace for good reason. It seems an irony that the branch of government susceptible to the least public control is frequently the only branch that goes out of its way to protect the rights of the public.

Now do not get me wrong, I am not best pleased with many of the directions the SCOTUS has gone in the past couple decades. It disturbs me most of all that the 4th amendment(probably tied for the most important with the 1st) has already been hammered half out of relevancy by our half century "war on drugs." But recall elections for SCOTUS judges? Yuck. Do you really want the people who elect the Texas state legislature helping directly select the SCOTUS? In a couple years smoking pot in your own home might be punishable by having Bubba pull you into an alley and hit you on the head with a brick.
 
Back
Top Bottom