PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Marijuana Legalized in Colorado and Washington


Direckshun
11-07-2012, 07:47 AM
Sounds like a good thing.

Thoughts?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

Colorado and Washington Have Legalized Marijuana. What Now?
Jacob Sullum
Nov. 7, 2012 12:52 am

As Mike Riggs noted (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/colorado-has-legalized-recreational-use) earlier tonight, voters have approved marijuana legalization measures in Colorado and Washington—an unprecedented change that could help lead our country away from the unjust, cruel, and disastrous policy of using force to impose politicians' pharmacological tastes on the populace. The latest numbers show Colorado's Amendment 64 winning (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote) 53 percent of the vote, while an even larger majority, 56 percent, favored (http://seattletimes.com/flatpages/politics/2012-washington-election-results.html) Washington's Initiative 502. What happens now?

The elimination of penalties for possessing up to an ounce of marijuana (if you are 21 or older) takes effect right away in both states. But the provisions allowing commercial production and sale of cannabis for recreational use require regulations that will be written during the next year. The Washington Liquor Control Board has until December 1, 2013, to adopt regulations for marijuana growers, wholesalers, processors, and retailers. The deadline in Colorado, where cannabis businesses will be overseen by the state Department of Revenue, is July 1, 2013. Colorado's law (http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regulate-marijuana-alcohol-act-2012), unlike Washington's (http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20bookmarked.pdf), also allows home cultivation of up to six plants and nonprofit transfers of up to an ounce, so Colorado pot smokers will have an immediate state-legal source of marijuana.

How will the federal government react? Allow me to regurgitate some of what I said (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/02/what-happens-if-as-seems-likely-washingt) last week:

Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument (http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/former-dea-heads-repeat-their) made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0199913730/reasonmagazineA/), "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests (http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/29/is-the-local-war-on-marijuana-ebbing) nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0328.pdf) of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Enforcement_Administration) special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2216) sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle (http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/06/us-tax-court-says-pot-is-deductible-for), their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

During the next few years the feds will confront the practical limits on their powers, even as they continue to defy the constititional limits (with help (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454) from the Supreme Court). The experiments on which Colorado and Washington are embarking will be instructive for the entire country, not just in terms of drug policy, where new approaches are sorely needed, but also in terms of defining the boundary between state and federal power. No one would ever mistake Barack Obama, who broke (http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer) his promise to respect state laws allowing the medical use of marijuana, for a federalist. But during his second term circumstances may compel him to step back and let a few states try a little tolerance for a change.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 07:48 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/colorado_marijuana_legalization_initiative_clashes_between_states_and_feds.html

Begun, These Marijuana Wars Have
By Matthew Yglesias
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012, at 11:40 PM ET

The marijuana legalization initiative that seems to have passed today in Colorado (and a similar one that may well pass in Washington as well) is, I think, a bigger deal than people realize. Unlike jurisdictions that have "decriminalized" marijuana, this aims to create a genuine honest-to-God legal marijuana industry. It goes even beyond what the Netherlands has done, where small scale marijuana retailing is permitted but large-scale production and wholesaling is really existing in a gray area.

In principle, a true legal marijuana regime could be a totally revolutionary situation. Imagine amber waves of pot and big factories drying and packaging the joints just as in the heyday of the cigarette industry.

But before you buy land to start your marijuana farm, note that the drug is still illegal in the United States of America and that Colorado is one of the United States of America. Consequently, if you try to set up a large-scale pot business you're liable to get busted by the DEA. So expect a lot of clashes around this and a sticky situation for the Obama administration.

HonestChieffan
11-07-2012, 09:32 AM
How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .

Brock
11-07-2012, 09:32 AM
How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .

How about we just handle it the same way we do alcohol?

listopencil
11-07-2012, 09:53 AM
How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .

Right off the top of my head there is a Wal Mart warehouse in Loveland, Colorado. The company disapproves of mj use and will fire you if you fail a drug test, even in California with a medicinal card. I am going to be interested in how they (Wal Mart) handle this going forward.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-07-2012, 09:58 AM
Hittin teh road!

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 09:59 AM
Right off the top of my head there is a Wal Mart warehouse in Loveland, Colorado. The company disapproves of mj use and will fire you if you fail a drug test, even in California with a medicinal card. I am going to be interested in how they (Wal Mart) handle this going forward.

I'm guessing they handle it the same way they always have.

Fish
11-07-2012, 09:59 AM
Hittin teh road!

LMAO

Pick me up on the way?

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:03 AM
I'm guessing they handle it the same way they always have.

They may not be able to. In a state where pot is completely legal they might actually lose the lawsuit. It's a long shot. Wal Mart handles a shit ton of legal cases. But if they lose it could set up a change in the way they have to do business in other states.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 10:03 AM
Hittin teh road!

Not the only thing you will be hitting, I'm sure. ;)

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:06 AM
How will employers deal with this? Many have zero tolerance policies. If you operate machinery, drive a company car or truck the risks are too great. They pee tests will lead to a number of people getting canned and fast.....the consequences of this is a lot more complex than a lot of people want to understand .


Many already do testing. They should continue, and it should be a fire-able offense. What's the issue?

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:08 AM
Many already do testing. They should continue, and it should be a fire-able offense. What's the issue?

The issue is that you can fail a drug test for marijuana long after the effects of the drug are over. So drug tests for pot in a state where usage is legal sets up a situation where someone can be fired for engaging in a legal activity that has no bearing on work performance.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:08 AM
FYI Mass yesterday passed a medical marijuana ballot initiative, becoming the 18th state to legalize mj for medical purposes.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:11 AM
The issue is that you can fail a drug test for marijuana long after the effects of the drug are over. So drug tests for pot in a state where usage is legal sets up a situation where someone can be fired for engaging in a legal activity that has no bearing on work performance.


Umm...tough shit? Don't know what else to say.

The NFL can punish players for having certain substances in their system even if it's a side effect of taking a perfectly legal over the counter drug or whatever. This is basically the same thing -- individuals need to know/understand their employer's policies and refrain from doing things that might get them fired.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:14 AM
Umm...tough shit? Don't know what else to say.

The NFL can punish players for having certain substances in their system even if it's a side effect of taking a perfectly legal over the counter drug or whatever. This is basically the same thing -- individuals need to know/understand their employer's policies and refrain from doing things that might get them fired.

The drug rules for competitive sport are primarily designed to prevent unfair advantage from ingesting PED's as well as to enforce usage standards consistent with generally accepted law. There is a substantial difference.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:19 AM
The issue is that you can fail a drug test for marijuana long after the effects of the drug are over. So drug tests for pot in a state where usage is legal sets up a situation where someone can be fired for engaging in a legal activity that has no bearing on work performance.

That's the thing. It's still not legal. It is just as illegal at the federal level as it was before. There are plenty of other laws that are only enforced at the federal level.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:21 AM
The drug rules for competitive sport are primarily designed to prevent unfair advantage from ingesting PED's as well as to enforce usage standards consistent with generally accepted law. There is a substantial difference.


No really, there isn't. It's all about employers wanting to ensure that their employees have present a certain image in addition to being qualified. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory reason (discriminatory relating to a protected class).

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:22 AM
That's the thing. It's still not legal. It is just as illegal at the federal level as it was before. There are plenty of other laws that are only enforced at the federal level.


Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:24 AM
Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

Correct. My point is that "you can't fire me for smoking weed because it's perfectly legal" is not a valid argument.

KC native
11-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

Not replying to this post, but since you're a lawyer (and i know this isn't what you practice), what do you think the likelihood of a company or state arguing that federal marijuana prohibition abridges their interstate commerce thus nullifying federal law wrt marijuana?

ClevelandBronco
11-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Right, but as a prior post points out, the vast majority of small time pot busts are done at the local/state level. Now they don't have to deal with all that if they don't want to, and the feds can't possibly deal with it.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Colorado. I would have preferred legalizing it outside of the Colorado Constitution, but as it stand now, Coloradans appear to have a Constitutional right to be stoned. Will it be an actively protected right and how will it be protected? That may be up to the courts.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:26 AM
Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.


And there's the difference.

HonestChieffan
11-07-2012, 10:28 AM
They may not be able to. In a state where pot is completely legal they might actually lose the lawsuit. It's a long shot. Wal Mart handles a shit ton of legal cases. But if they lose it could set up a change in the way they have to do business in other states.


If its a condition of employment and there are good reasons, they would not have much risk of losing IMHO. You cant have someone operate dangerous equipment, risk injury to self or others. It just is that simple.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:28 AM
And there's the difference.

No, there's really not. If you have an illegal substance in your system at work, you can be fired.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 10:29 AM
Reagan never wouldve let this happen. To borrow a phrase from one of the best players on the team, "I'm sickened and disgusted."

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:30 AM
That's the thing. It's still not legal. It is just as illegal at the federal level as it was before. There are plenty of other laws that are only enforced at the federal level.

True. I would imagine that that is what the Wal Mart lawyers are going to go with when the lawsuits start.

ClevelandBronco
11-07-2012, 10:32 AM
No, there's really not. If you have an illegal substance in your system at work, you can be fired.

Colorado is a right to work state and you can be fired for an infinite list of reasons. However, we are no longer talking about an illegal substance.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:32 AM
If its a condition of employment and there are good reasons, they would not have much risk of losing IMHO. You cant have someone operate dangerous equipment, risk injury to self or others. It just is that simple.

No, it isn't. It's fairly easy to test for inebriation. You can easily test positive for pot without being currently under the influence.

Brock
11-07-2012, 10:34 AM
No, it isn't. It's fairly easy to test for inebriation. You can easily test positive for pot without being currently under the influence.

It doesn't matter. There are companies that refuse to hire tobacco users and fire them when they're caught too.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:35 AM
No, it isn't. It's fairly easy to test for inebriation. You can easily test positive for pot without being currently under the influence.

Doesn't matter if you are stoned. It only matters if it's in your system.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 10:37 AM
Colorado is a right to work state and you can be fired for an infinite list of reasons. However, we are no longer talking about an illegal substance.

1. It is still illegal.

2. Alcohol is legal, so what's your point

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:38 AM
Doesn't matter if you are stoned. It only matters if it's in your system.


Regarding work performance: Why would that be true? I understand your point from a legal vs. illegal perspective given Federal law.

teedubya
11-07-2012, 10:38 AM
No really, there isn't. It's all about employers wanting to ensure that their employees have present a certain image in addition to being qualified. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory reason (discriminatory relating to a protected class).

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

You've never smoked pot, so you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about here. :evil:

ClevelandBronco
11-07-2012, 10:42 AM
1. It is still illegal.

2. Alcohol is legal, so what's your point

Alcohol use is not a specific right under the Colorado Constitution. Weed use is.

Reliable testing for THC inebriation is lacking.

Employers can still be sued for wrongful termination.

This is an entirely different can of worms for employers.

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Correct. My point is that "you can't fire me for smoking weed because it's perfectly legal" is not a valid argument.



In most states, you can fire someone for ANY reason or NO reason, so long as it's not for an illegal reason.

You dyed your hair red? I hate redheads. YOU'RE fired. Completely legal.

(not that I've done employment law lately, but that's the general rule in employment-at-will states. You can quit for ANY reason, and you can be fired for ANY reason (so long as it's not discriminatory, and being a red-head isn't a protected class).

Amnorix
11-07-2012, 10:50 AM
You've never smoked pot, so you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about here. :evil:


I admit that that probably reduces my sympathy levels, yes. :D

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 11:06 AM
In most states, you can fire someone for ANY reason or NO reason, so long as it's not for an illegal reason.

You dyed your hair red? I hate redheads. YOU'RE fired. Completely legal.

(not that I've done employment law lately, but that's the general rule in employment-at-will states. You can quit for ANY reason, and you can be fired for ANY reason (so long as it's not discriminatory, and being a red-head isn't a protected class).

I agree.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 11:08 AM
Alcohol use is not a specific right under the Colorado Constitution. Weed use is.

Reliable testing for THC inebriation is lacking.

Employers can still be sued for wrongful termination.

This is an entirely different can of worms for employers.

It's no can of worms at all. Literally nothing has changed as far as they need to be concerned.

ClevelandBronco
11-07-2012, 11:28 AM
It's no can of worms at all. Literally nothing has changed as far as they need to be concerned.

Until a couple of key issues are decided by the courts, I think you're talking about what the situation should be instead of what it will be.

Bump
11-07-2012, 11:30 AM
No really, there isn't. It's all about employers wanting to ensure that their employees have present a certain image in addition to being qualified. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a discriminatory reason (discriminatory relating to a protected class).

Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

I think it's about control. I would never work for a place that does drug tests, that means they want to control every aspect of your life. I'm not down for that at all.

Brock
11-07-2012, 11:31 AM
I think it's about control. I would never work for a place that does drug tests, that means they want to control every aspect of your life. I'm not down for that at all.

Yeah, you'd do it if you needed a job or if the compensation was good enough.

Donger
11-07-2012, 11:35 AM
I'm going to get some "pot" now that it's legal and consume it. I've been warned that I shouldn't try it (something about that I wouldn't be much fun stoned), but if you can't beat them, join them.

Brock
11-07-2012, 11:36 AM
I'm going to get some "pot" now that it's legal and consume it. I've been warned that I shouldn't try it (something about that I wouldn't be much fun stoned), but if you can't beat them, join them.

Please be posting here while you do it. I want to see what you're like when you're interesting.

Donger
11-07-2012, 11:40 AM
Please be posting here while you do it. I want to see what you're like when you're interesting.

I will do my best.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 11:43 AM
I will do my best.


That would be great. I've never smoked pot and it would be fun to get your take on what it's like to be high.

Contrarian
11-07-2012, 11:48 AM
As long as you have documentation to show that you are a grower, a medicinal user, a recreational user and you show that to your employer they can't do anything to you in the state of Washington. Projections on taxed weed sales is a boost of 1.7 million dollars a year to the state. I live here, I plan to grow my 6 plants and there is nothing my employer can do about it along as they are informed with documentation.

Detoxing
11-07-2012, 11:51 AM
Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

Brock
11-07-2012, 11:51 AM
As long as you have documentation to show that you are a grower, a medicinal user, a recreational user and you show that to your employer they can't do anything to you in the state of Washington. Projections on taxed weed sales is a boost of 1.7 million dollars a year to the state. I live here, I plan to grow my 6 plants and there is nothing my employer can do about it along as they are informed with documentation.

1.7 Million? That sounds very, very low.

Fish
11-07-2012, 12:05 PM
I think it's about control. I would never work for a place that does drug tests, that means they want to control every aspect of your life. I'm not down for that at all.

No it doesn't. Generally it's about safety, where being under the influence makes you a danger to yourself and others in the workplace.

You don't have to be paranoid about everything in life dude....

listopencil
11-07-2012, 12:07 PM
As long as you have documentation to show that you are a grower, a medicinal user, a recreational user and you show that to your employer they can't do anything to you in the state of Washington.

There is a Wal Mart DC in Grandview, WA.

Detoxing
11-07-2012, 12:13 PM
Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

Ahem?

teedubya
11-07-2012, 12:20 PM
Peyton Manning acquired 21 Papa John's franchise restaurants in the Denver area last week... what a bastard.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Peyton Manning acquired 21 Papa John's franchise restaurants in the Denver area last week... what a bastard.


His anticipatory skills are widely acknowledged.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 12:26 PM
Oh, by the way, before I go run some errands, you guys are slipping:


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k_WyUwNPOzQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KC native
11-07-2012, 12:29 PM
Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

I think this is the type of situatuion that will push the feds to end marijuana prohibition. Interstate commerce clause is where it will be overturned IMO.

Johnny Vegas
11-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Question:

Lets say you grow a pound of weed out in in Denver and wanna mail it your friend out in Boulder.....can you send it USPS?

absolutely not. you can't mail alcohol.

Chocolate Hog
11-07-2012, 12:47 PM
It's going to be really interesting to see how the Feds handle this. All of those people who were screaming states rights during the health care debate now will be looking good coming out of this.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:11 PM
Smoking pot can get you fired. So can showing up to work drunk. I fail to see a serious problem with such a policy.

I have no problem with private businesses hiring and firing whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.

But the hypocrisy in this statement (unintended, I'm sure) gets under my skin.

You don't get fired for DRINKING. You get fired for showing up to work DRUNK.

Yet you can get fired for smoking some weed while in vacation in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago because they might be able to detect a trace amount in your pee.

It's beyond stupid.

DaFace
11-07-2012, 01:20 PM
I see how you guys are. Just ignore my thread. :sulk:

Graystoke
11-07-2012, 01:29 PM
I have no problem with private businesses hiring and firing whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.

But the hypocrisy in this statement (unintended, I'm sure) gets under my skin.

You don't get fired for DRINKING. You get fired for showing up to work DRUNK.

Yet you can get fired for smoking some weed while in vacation in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago because they might be able to detect a trace amount in your pee.

It's beyond stupid.

Tell that to the Insurance Lobby and OSHA. I am sure they are talking with the Feds as we speak.

I honestly think Legalization is the way to go. I just am perplexed how they are going to handle the side issues such as:

CDL License and Operating under the Influence
Health Insurance Issues, (AKA how they handle Tobacco and what about that Second Hand Smoke? OH MY!)

Johnny Vegas
11-07-2012, 01:31 PM
I have a great theory as to why its still illegal in this country federally. Think about it. The government spends more money eradicating cannabis than any other drug out there. The amount of man power and privatized prisons that are invested in the War on Drugs is enough proof to help this theory. The DEA, ATF, and FBI as well as prison complexes would have a lot of their workforce out of jobs and funding would dramatically decrease. Nobody wants to be out of a job and lose money. They'll fight it all the way to the end.

Contrarian
11-07-2012, 01:40 PM
What it is all about in Washington is that there is big business in pot sales and the state reaps no benefit of it because it's not taxed. We have stores that you can go to and get great quality stuff for half the price you get on the street and sellers were making a huge profit. One dude I spoke to was bringing in at least 10k a day cash. Now that they have legalized it these sellers are going to be taxed heavily and many of the sellers were against this passing because it will take at least a thrid of their cash away from them.
Many will go underground and sell same as before. Quality may falter unless there are incentives in place for sellers in the market. but I like the law. It's easier and cheaper to invest and grow your own than going out and buying it. But you have a choice in the state to do either.
The cost projection I thought was low too but that is because the folks reporting that dont use or sell pot! HA! I know it will be much higher...pardon the pun. And when Washington state starts reaping those benefits other states will get in line, especially the whole west coast!

Bump
11-07-2012, 01:42 PM
No it doesn't. Generally it's about safety, where being under the influence makes you a danger to yourself and others in the workplace.

You don't have to be paranoid about everything in life dude....

I understand you shouldn't go to work high. But if you aren't allowed to use it on your time away from work = control of you. I have never gone to work high, never. But I couldn't work at a place that does drug testing, because when it's time to relax and the day is over, I want some weed.

Bump
11-07-2012, 01:44 PM
I have a great theory as to why its still illegal in this country federally. Think about it. The government spends more money eradicating cannabis than any other drug out there. The amount of man power and privatized prisons that are invested in the War on Drugs is enough proof to help this theory. The DEA, ATF, and FBI as well as prison complexes would have a lot of their workforce out of jobs and funding would dramatically decrease. Nobody wants to be out of a job and lose money. They'll fight it all the way to the end.

yup.

1. Big Pharma
2. Corporate Prisons
3. Police Unions

profit

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 01:45 PM
What it is all about in Washington is that there is big business in pot sales and the state reaps no benefit of it because it's not taxed. We have stores that you can go to and get great quality stuff for half the price you get on the street and sellers were making a huge profit. One dude I spoke to was bringing in at least 10k a day cash. Now that they have legalized it these sellers are going to be taxed heavily and many of the sellers were against this passing because it will take at least a thrid of their cash away from them.
Many will go underground and sell same as before. Quality may falter unless there are incentives in place for sellers in the market. but I like the law. It's easier and cheaper to invest and grow your own than going out and buying it. But you have a choice in the state to do either.
The cost projection I thought was low too but that is because the folks reporting that dont use or sell pot! HA! I know it will be much higher...pardon the pun. And when Washington state starts reaping those benefits other states will get in line, especially the whole west coast!

It's not going underground to any substantial degree. You don't go to your local bootlegger for beer.

DaFace
11-07-2012, 01:46 PM
Regarding the workplace debate going on here, this is specifically listed in the Colorado amendment:

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

So basically, employers can still test for it if they want to. Is that fair? Probably not given the concerns about it staying in someone's system. But that's the way it goes - if an employer doesn't want you smoking, you either comply or find another job.

Ace Gunner
11-07-2012, 01:52 PM
1.7 Million? That sounds very, very low.

low population state.

tooge
11-07-2012, 01:53 PM
I don't know about how the tests for pot in a persons system work, but perhaps a scale could be created like the one for alcohol. If you have X amount of pot in your blood/pee, then you are considered under the influence. If it is below that amount, you are not. Seems easy enough to me.

Bump
11-07-2012, 01:53 PM
Regarding the workplace debate going on here, this is specifically listed in the Colorado amendment:



So basically, employers can still test for it if they want to. Is that fair? Probably not given the concerns about it staying in someone's system. But that's the way it goes - if an employer doesn't want you smoking, you either comply or find another job.

if you show up to work high, even I think you should be fired for sure. But it's not right to say they can't do it on their time off.

Saul Good
11-07-2012, 01:55 PM
if you show up to work high, even I think you should be fired for sure. But it's not right to say they can't do it on their time off.

Smoke it all you want in your time off. Just don't have it in your system when you clock in.

Ace Gunner
11-07-2012, 01:56 PM
Regarding the workplace debate going on here, this is specifically listed in the Colorado amendment:



So basically, employers can still test for it if they want to. Is that fair? Probably not given the concerns about it staying in someone's system. But that's the way it goes - if an employer doesn't want you smoking, you either comply or find another job.

I don't see it as unfair in principle. What is not fair, is that those same employers waive all responsibility to the community when the drug alcohol is used and abused outside of the premises. This is not only unfair, but unwise.

Johnny Vegas
11-07-2012, 01:57 PM
I don't know about how the tests for pot in a persons system work, but perhaps a scale could be created like the one for alcohol. If you have X amount of pot in your blood/pee, then you are considered under the influence. If it is below that amount, you are not. Seems easy enough to me.

there is a cotton swab test that can determine how long ago you smoked by the level of thc in your saliva. It would take about a day or 2 tops of not smoking to not be found.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 01:58 PM
Tell that to the Insurance Lobby and OSHA. I am sure they are talking with the Feds as we speak.

I honestly think Legalization is the way to go. I just am perplexed how they are going to handle the side issues such as:

CDL License and Operating under the Influence
Health Insurance Issues, (AKA how they handle Tobacco and what about that Second Hand Smoke? OH MY!)

You evidently didn't read my post.

One can have detectable levels of THC in their urine for WEEKS, long after they are "under the influence". Hell, in their hair and fat cells, it can be retained for YEARS.

People ONLY get fired for consuming alcohol in their fucking CAR in the work PARKING LOT right before their shift.

People can get fired for lighting up a joint while on vacation in JAMAICA even though it was TWO MONTHS AGO.

I am absolutely NOT talking about showing up to work high, which SHOULD concern OSHA and the insurance industry. People who do that are irresponsible and stupid.

However, people who want to spark up in their own home on their own time and show up to work COMPLETLY SOBER should not be subject to the same scrutiny. It's utterly absurd.

Contrarian
11-07-2012, 01:58 PM
I have a great theory as to why its still illegal in this country federally. Think about it. The government spends more money eradicating cannabis than any other drug out there. The amount of man power and privatized prisons that are invested in the War on Drugs is enough proof to help this theory. The DEA, ATF, and FBI as well as prison complexes would have a lot of their workforce out of jobs and funding would dramatically decrease. Nobody wants to be out of a job and lose money. They'll fight it all the way to the end.

Agreed.
It's such an old battle based on gateway drug propaganda by a controling government from a past era. They had to search out suppliers with fields and fields of the stuff and burn it down, stop people at the border and customs from bringing it in. Now you have people that can grow a few plants very well, high quality, and produce not only enough for themselves but also to line their pockets with some extra cash and still show up for work and do their job on a daily basis.
Hell Nike for example doesn't even have a drug policy and other companies are starting to follow suit. It's an inevitable that this change is going to come sooner rather than later.

Ace Gunner
11-07-2012, 01:59 PM
I don't know about how the tests for pot in a persons system work, but perhaps a scale could be created like the one for alcohol. If you have X amount of pot in your blood/pee, then you are considered under the influence. If it is below that amount, you are not. Seems easy enough to me.

you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

Bump
11-07-2012, 02:05 PM
Smoke it all you want in your time off. Just don't have it in your system when you clock in.

it's detectable for like 2-4 weeks after use

DaFace
11-07-2012, 02:06 PM
you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

I don't fully understand it either, but I know for sure it's tougher than a BAL test like a DUI. For whatever reason, it stays in your blood at reasonably high levels far after you are no longer "high" and it's difficult to define a cutoff in a way that would be an accurate predictor of impairment.

Or something like that.

Contrarian
11-07-2012, 02:07 PM
It's not going underground to any substantial degree. You don't go to your local bootlegger for beer.

Every seller except for two in the store that I go to said that is what they would do if it passed. It's not like these guys are companies like Budweiser and Coors. These dudes ARE bootleggers with a free pass to peddle their product to the medicinal pot needy public.
Just so happens all you need to do to get a card is to go to a doctor that is pro marajuana and he'll sign you up for a number of reasons. Can't sleep or anxiety, can't eat loss of appetite, gout, previous injuries, joint pain or arthritis. STRESS!! I know someone who claimed he had stress from work and got a card.

tooge
11-07-2012, 02:13 PM
you don't understand the science behind your statement. It is complex, and I'm no expert so I'll just leave it at "it doesn't work this way".

heh. I completely understand the science behind how THC is metabolized. What I'm saying is that since it is metabolized at a given rate (just like alcohol), and since that rate can be correlated to amounts remaining in different tissues and/or bodily fluids, then an amount should be able to be set that is considered "under the influence". I get that you can find it in fat cells a month after you use it. Bottom line is if you aren't under the influence of the THC, in a sense that it isn't impairing you, then it doesn't matter if you did it 2 days ago. Just like alcohol. don't be so dense.

DaFace
11-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Every seller except for two in the store that I go to said that is what they would do if it passed. It's not like these guys are companies like Budweiser and Coors. These dudes ARE bootleggers with a free pass to peddle their product to the medicinal pot needy public.
Just so happens all you need to do to get a card is to go to a doctor that is pro marajuana and he'll sign you up for a number of reasons. Can't sleep or anxiety, can't eat loss of appetite, gout, previous injuries, joint pain or arthritis. STRESS!! I know someone who claimed he had stress from work and got a card.

That may be true in some cases, but I highly doubt it would be the norm. People can brew beer in their homes too, but that's not the typical way people buy it. It's just too much of a hassle.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-09-2012, 03:13 PM
Today, according to the Facebook page of KING 5 news, the prosecutor of King County (home of Seattle) has announced he is dropping all misdemeanor possession of marijuana charges due to the passage of I-502.

This is after the AG said they are ready to defend the voters rights to pass this initiative against the federal government. They have already started taking applications for distributors licenses, and this law takes effect Dec. 6th.

These guys aren't fucking around. What do you all think of Washington's proactive stance to this?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:14 PM
Fed response come out yet?

Mr. Flopnuts
11-09-2012, 03:17 PM
Fed response come out yet?

Literally the only thing they've said is "The law has not changed".

That's it. So, for someone who wants to smoke, they're good. It's legal to have 1 oz of "usable marijuana" on your possession. I think the only people who have to worry are people who want to sell it. And they only have to worry about the Federal Government, not local police. This is on. Less than a month, this stuff is full on.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:21 PM
Literally the only thing they've said is "The law has not changed".

That's it. So, for someone who wants to smoke, they're good. It's legal to have 1 oz of "usable marijuana" on your possession. I think the only people who have to worry are people who want to sell it. And they only have to worry about the Federal Government, not local police. This is on. Less than a month, this stuff is full on.

Intradasting. I'm not sure I fully accept that as the final Federal position on the matter given how they have been acting in California but I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

Seems odd the administration would sue a state for enacting border security but look the other way over recreational mj use.

DaFace
11-09-2012, 06:18 PM
Intradasting. I'm not sure I fully accept that as the final Federal position on the matter given how they have been acting in California but I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

Seems odd the administration would sue a state for enacting border security but look the other way over recreational mj use.

Hickenlooper (Colorado Governor) apparently had a call with the US Attorney General today, but they're not releasing what he found out. At any rate, it doesn't sound like they're immediately going to sue the states over it. What that really ends up meaning is anyone's guess.

dmahurin
11-09-2012, 06:31 PM
Hickenlooper (Colorado Governor) apparently had a call with the US Attorney General today, but they're not releasing what he found out. At any rate, it doesn't sound like they're immediately going to sue the states over it. What that really ends up meaning is anyone's guess.

The Feds want to see how much of the tax dollars they could rack up before they make up there mind.

ClevelandBronco
11-09-2012, 07:04 PM
The Feds want to see how much of the tax dollars they could rack up before they make up there mind.

Colorado should be wondering whether it is in peril of losing some federal tax dollars unless they repeal the amendment. Such a move by the federal government to influence state law would not be unprecedented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

ReynardMuldrake
11-09-2012, 10:50 PM
220 marijuana cases dismissed in King, Pierce counties [Washington]

UPDATE 3:03 p.m. King and Pierce County prosecutors are dismissing more than 220 misdemeanor marijuana cases in response to Tuesday’s vote to decriminalize small amounts of pot.

In King County, 175 cases are being dismissed involving people 21 and older and possession of one ounce or less. I-502 makes one ounce of marijuana legal on Dec. 6, but King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg decided to apply I-502 retroactively.

“Although the effective date of I-502 is not until December 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month,” Satterberg said in a statement.

The dismissed cases involved arrests in unincorporated King County, as well as the state highways and the University of Washington. About 40 of the cases had already been filed in court as criminal charges; those charges will be dismissed. Another 135 cases were pending charging decisions and will simply be returned to the arresting police agency.

Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he was dismissing “about four dozen” pending cases where misdemeanor marijuana was the only offense. He said his staff was continuing to prosecute other cases where possession was secondary to a more serious charge, such as drunken driving.

“The people have spoken through this initiative,” said Lindquist. “And as a practical matter, I don’t think you could sell a simple marijuana case to a jury after this initiative passed.”

In an interview, Satterberg said his office would continue to prosecute marijuana possession above one ounce, allowing for “a buffer for those whose scales are less than accurate.” His office also charges felony possession — for people with more than 40 grams — although he said his staff routinely allows those defendants to plead down to a misdemeanor.

“I think when the people voted to change the policy, they weren’t focused on when the effective date of the new policy would be. They spoke loudly and clearly that we should not treat small amounts of marijuana as an offense,” he said.
I-502 campaign manager Alison Holcomb said she was “incredibly moved” by Satterberg’s announcement, which she said showed “incredible courage.”

The decision supports a prime argument I-502 made during the campaign. A study by a group of academics found there had been 241,000 misdemeanor marijuana possession cases in Washington over the past 25 years, 67,000 of them in the past five years. “If 502 hadn’t passed, we’d see the same amount of marijuana possession cases every year,” she said. “What makes a difference is changing the law.”
Satterberg is the first prosecutor to change charging policy after I-502, but other prosecutors are also considering these cases. Tom McBride of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys said his office “just starting to work through those issues.”

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has refused to prosecute misdemeanor possession cases since he took office.

Earlier this week, the chief criminal deputy prosecutor in Spokane County, Jack Driscoll, appeared to take a more conservative position. He told the Spokesman-Review that, even after Dec. 6, the only marijuana which was legal to possess was pot sold in the state-licensed stores called for in I-502. Those stores won’t be created for at least a year.

“The only thing that is legal is selling marijuana through those stores,” Driscoll said. “That will be regulated by the state. You can’t under this initiative have an ounce of marijuana that doesn’t come from a state-issued provider. You still can’t have black-market marijuana.”

Holcomb disputed that interpretation. So did Satterberg, who called it a “very narrow reading” of the initiative. “I don’t know how you trace where (the marijuana) comes from,” he said.
Satterberg said he expected federal authorities to seek an injunction to block implementation of I-502′s state licensing scheme for marijuana retailers and growers. “I think it’s the kind of issue the U.S. Supreme Court will have a final word on,” said Satterberg, calling it an “an important state’s rights issue.”
But he does not expect a federal lawsuit to target the types of cases he is dismissing, noting that states already have widely divergent penalties for marijuana possession.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2012/11/09/175-marijuana-prosecutions-in-king-county-dismissed-because-of-initiative-502/

ReynardMuldrake
11-09-2012, 10:52 PM
Oops, Flop beat me to it.

-King-
11-13-2012, 04:08 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VEkLIlDN3UI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

WoodDraw
11-13-2012, 04:50 PM
The problem is that the Federal gov can do whatever they want under Gonzales v. Raich. The chance of them doing nothing and allowing legal marijuana shops is nil.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-13-2012, 04:55 PM
The problem is that the Federal gov can do whatever they want under Gonzales v. Raich. The chance of them doing nothing and allowing legal marijuana shops is nil.

So the risk remains the same for those who sell. However, those who smoke look to be home free. Sounds like a damned fine start if you ask me!

J Diddy
11-13-2012, 05:06 PM
So the risk remains the same for those who sell. However, those who smoke look to be home free. Sounds like a damned fine start if you ask me!

Pretty stupid approach by the feds if you ask me. It takes away the opportunity of brick and mortar establishments and an opportunity to regulate and tax those establishments. Instead it puts them in the shadows and with shady supply chains.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-13-2012, 05:10 PM
Pretty stupid approach by the feds if you ask me. It takes away the opportunity of brick and mortar establishments and an opportunity to regulate and tax those establishments. Instead it puts them in the shadows and with shady supply chains.

Honestly, I don't see the Feds pursuing these guys any more than they have the medicinal guys. Meaning pay your taxes and you'll be just fine.

Donger
11-13-2012, 05:11 PM
So the risk remains the same for those who sell. However, those who smoke look to be home free. Sounds like a damned fine start if you ask me!

I think that it's still illegal in Colorado to smoke pot outside/in public.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-13-2012, 05:16 PM
I think that it's still illegal in Colorado to smoke pot outside/in public.

Same in Washington. Also in non smoking apartments, etc.

J Diddy
11-13-2012, 05:20 PM
Honestly, I don't see the Feds pursuing these guys any more than they have the medicinal guys. Meaning pay your taxes and you'll be just fine.

I agree, but until you remove the threat of having someone swoop in and pound your ass, you're not really going to see to much of a committment, imo.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-13-2012, 05:22 PM
I agree, but until you remove the threat of having someone swoop in and pound your ass, you're not really going to see to much of a committment, imo.

Honestly, Washington is getting TONS of calls from people who want in. They're slammed.

J Diddy
11-13-2012, 05:41 PM
Honestly, Washington is getting TONS of calls from people who want in. They're slammed.

They need to be let in, imo.

go bowe
11-13-2012, 05:47 PM
Honestly, Washington is getting TONS of calls from people who want in. They're slammed.

i wish i was slammed... :bong:

Mr. Flopnuts
11-14-2012, 01:23 PM
They need to be let in, imo.

Sorry I didn't catch this before now. They will be. Don't expect WA state to drag their feet. They're almost going out of their way to take this fight to the Feds. They've already come out and said they're dropping charges, and going to pretty much put the possession part of the law into effect immediately. They just have to figure out how they want to set it up and tax it, and boom! It's in.

The problem I have is that they haven't already done that. Yeah the law allows them until the end of next year, but if they're going to be so proactive, they should've been prepared. That said, folks up there are already comparing it to prohibition. And that's the ones who don't use it. At least per their statements on the Facebook news pages up there. Lots of griping, but a lot of folks are saying this has been a long time coming.

BigCatDaddy
07-25-2013, 03:23 PM
So I'm confused now :shrug:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/dea-raiding-marijuana-dispensaries-washington/nY3Lp/

Federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency raided medical marijuana dispensaries in Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and Gig Harbor Wednesday.

"It hurts me a lot. This is really hard. This is my life," said a tearful Addy Norton, who works at Olympia's Bayside Collective.

Norton told KIRO 7 the DEA agents arrived at the dispensary about 10:30 a.m., saying, "five guys stuck their guns in my face."

Dispensary owner Casey Lee said the feds took 16 marijuana plants off the shelves along with edible marijuana products, the employees’ cellphones and paperwork.

Lee says it's very disturbing, since he believes he is operating legally under Washington state law.

"I kept saying, ‘We don't feel like we've done anything wrong. Why are you guys here?’ And they said, ‘Well, you guys are state legal, but you are still not federally legal,’ that’s all they could tell me,” said Lee.

The DEA agents told the owner the raid of several dispensaries in Washington was part of a two-year investigation, although they would not discuss details of what they call an ongoing investigation.

Norton says when the feds left the Olympia dispensary she posted a video warning to other dispensaries on Facebook.

Norton's message said in part, "Bayside was just raided and we're not sure if they are going out to the other collectives, but we are just letting you know we were raided we are fine and not in jail."

DEA agents did also raid the Tacoma Cross, Seattle Cross and Key Cross (in Gig Harbor) dispensaries as well.

Both the owner and employees at the Bayside Collective say this raid shows the urgent need for federal and state governments to clarify the marijuana laws immediately.

"This effects everybody -- it effects our family at home. I mean, this doesn't just effect the state and the feds, it effects all of us,” said Norton.

Owner Lee concurs.

"They obviously need to figure something out because they are ruining innocent lives."

Ace Gunner
07-25-2013, 03:26 PM
americans voted to legalize, gov't doesn't give one fuck

Frosty
07-25-2013, 03:28 PM
Feds flexing their muscles (and racking up cheap arrests).

LiveSteam
07-25-2013, 03:28 PM
I AM GOD!!!!!!!!!!

http://ncwtv.com/nn/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/99ederic-holder-ap-doj-phone-irs-scandal-1.jpg

AustinChief
07-25-2013, 03:33 PM
This makes ZERO sense to me from a purely political standpoint. Why does Obama's administration insist on alienating a group that overwhelmingly would otherwise support him? The only thing I can think of is that they are more concerned with squashing states' sovereignty than they are concerned over the "stoner vote."

Donger
07-25-2013, 03:35 PM
We went down to the 16th Street Mall this weekend, and very quickly left after seeing and smelling all the pot heads. It was really quite disconcerting.

Brock
07-25-2013, 03:55 PM
We went down to the 16th Street Mall this weekend, and very quickly left after seeing and smelling all the pot heads. It was really quite disconcerting.

You'll be missed.

Donger
07-25-2013, 03:59 PM
You'll be missed.

I doubt that, but it's a shame that they are being allowed to blatantly and arrogantly break the law.

Brock
07-25-2013, 04:02 PM
I doubt that, but it's a shame that they are being allowed to blatantly and arrogantly break the law.

It's a law nobody cares about, so no, not really a shame.

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:03 PM
It's a law nobody cares about, so no, not really a shame.

In that case, it's doubly shameful.

Brock
07-25-2013, 04:03 PM
16th street was great when it was just bums and panhandlers and drunks vomiting in the alleys, but now? Unbearable.

Detoxing
07-25-2013, 04:03 PM
We went down to the 16th Street Mall this weekend, and very quickly left after seeing and smelling all the pot heads. It was really quite disconcerting.

Pot heads scare you or something? You think they're gonna go crazy and start shooting the place up or rob you?

Why would you leave just because you saw someone smoking weed?

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:04 PM
Pot heads scare you or something? You think they're gonna go crazy and start shooting the place up or rob you?

Why would you leave just because you saw someone smoking weed?

We were with our kids.

DaFace
07-25-2013, 04:05 PM
16th street was great when it was just bums and panhandlers and drunks vomiting in the alleys, but now? Unbearable.

No kidding. It's not like it's been a nice, clean place until recently.

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:05 PM
16th street was great when it was just bums and panhandlers and drunks vomiting in the alleys, but now? Unbearable.

It's never been my favorite place, but the wife wanted to expose the kids to the urban lifestyle a bit more.

LiveSteam
07-25-2013, 04:05 PM
We went down to the 16th Street Mall this weekend, and very quickly left after seeing and smelling all the pot heads. It was really quite disconcerting.

If their is anyone on CP that should smoke pot /It is you.
It just may answer all your dam questions

Brock
07-25-2013, 04:07 PM
It's never been my favorite place, but the wife wanted to expose the kids to the urban lifestyle a bit more.

Well, there you go.

Detoxing
07-25-2013, 04:09 PM
We were with our kids.

Legit excuse i suppose. But i'm assuming that if they were outside smoking cigarettes instead, you'd turn and walk away just as fast, right?

Of course you would, because this about the safety of your children and shielding them from second hand smoke, not your ignorant opinions on the subject, right?

Right. Good guy you are, Donger.

Detoxing
07-25-2013, 04:09 PM
It's never been my favorite place, but the wife wanted to expose the kids to the urban lifestyle a bit more.

Wait, what?

lol.

So you got exactly what you asked for and didn't like it?

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:10 PM
Legit excuse i suppose. But i'm assuming that if they were outside smoking cigarettes instead, you'd turn and walk away just as fast, right?

Of course you would, because this about the safety of your children and shielding them from second hand smoke, not your ignorant opinions on the subject right?

Right. Good guy you are, Donger.

I would prefer not have to walk through and breathe cigarette smoke either. Then again, that isn't illegal.

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:10 PM
Wait, what?

lol.

So you got exactly what you asked for and didn't like it?

Yes, I suppose it was rather silly to presume that the pot heads would actually abide by the law they demanded.

loochy
07-25-2013, 04:11 PM
This makes ZERO sense to me from a purely political standpoint. Why does Obama's administration insist on alienating a group that overwhelmingly would otherwise support him? The only thing I can think of is that they are more concerned with squashing states' sovereignty than they are concerned over the "stoner vote."

Ha. They'll support him anyway.

Detoxing
07-25-2013, 04:15 PM
I would prefer not have to walk through and breathe cigarette smoke either. Then again, that isn't illegal.

We're not talking about what's illegal on a federal level, we're talking about the safety of your children, in which case MJ and tobacco are on a level playing field.

Your state voted for it and wanted it. So it's plenty legal. Even if it were legal on a federal level, something tells me it wouldn't change your feelings on it.

Honestly, this has nothing to do with it being legal or illegal and everything to do with the fact that you're afraid of MJ smokers because you assume it's some terrible drug that turns people into low life criminals.

Trust me, you're not going to get mugged by a Pot Head.

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:16 PM
Your state voted for it and wanted it. So it's plenty legal.

Actually, no, smoking pot in public isn't legal in Colorado.

KChiefer
07-25-2013, 04:17 PM
This makes ZERO sense to me from a purely political standpoint. Why does Obama's administration insist on alienating a group that overwhelmingly would otherwise support him? The only thing I can think of is that they are more concerned with squashing states' sovereignty than they are concerned over the "stoner vote."

Republicans or Democrats could push for federal legalization. I think this is less about attacking the states rights as the DEA hitting easy targets that have tons of money but little clout. If only NORML had the sway of the NRA, we'd see the DEA crippled in the way the ATF has been.

Also, I have to laugh at the "2 year investigation" the DEA did on those places. It took them 2 years to figure out they were selling pot???

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:17 PM
Honestly, this has nothing to do with it being legal or illegal and everything to do with the fact that you're afraid of MJ smokers because you assume it's some terrible drug that turns people into low life criminals.

And no, this is also incorrect.

DaFace
07-25-2013, 04:18 PM
Actually, no, smoking pot in public isn't legal in Colorado.

This is correct. It's legal to smoke here, yes, but you're not supposed to be doing it in public. That said, it's been a pretty public thing in downtown Denver for years now, so I'm not surprised that enforcement is still pretty lax.

Detoxing
07-25-2013, 04:20 PM
Actually, no, smoking pot in public isn't legal in Colorado.

The point is moot.

It being Legal or Illegal is not what made you feel threatened enough to walk away, nor was the "2nd hand smoke".

CrazyPhuD
07-25-2013, 04:21 PM
This makes ZERO sense to me from a purely political standpoint. Why does Obama's administration insist on alienating a group that overwhelmingly would otherwise support him? The only thing I can think of is that they are more concerned with squashing states' sovereignty than they are concerned over the "stoner vote."

:shrug: Thieves live money, they are loathe to give it up. Do you know how much money is to be had in confiscated assets? Hell there was a news report a while back talking about a drug sting operation in TN I think. They actually didn't stop ANY cars on the way FROM the mexico(i.e. those bringing in the drugs). Instead they only stopped those cars traveling south that had cash and in the vast majority of cases no drugs or anything. Just a large amount of cash, no charges filed, just cash confiscation and if you wanted it back you had to prove in a civil court that it wasn't drug money.

Hell in CA the feds are confiscating the property of LANDLORDS who rent to people running a legal state medical marijuana dispensery. The only crime the landlord is making is renting to someone the feds want to shut down but can't in other ways.

Big money in drug assets forfeiture. They don't care about the drugs they just want the cash.

Detoxing
07-25-2013, 04:22 PM
And no, this is also incorrect.

You're gonna try to tell me that if MJ were federally legal you would've continued to walk right by them?

Something being legal/Illegal is how you determine your family's safety?

KChiefer
07-25-2013, 04:31 PM
The point is moot.

It being Legal or Illegal is not what made you feel threatened enough to walk away, nor was the "2nd hand smoke".

Probably the bongos.

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:34 PM
You're gonna try to tell me that if MJ were federally legal you would've continued to walk right by them?

Something being legal/Illegal is how you determine your family's safety?

I meant that you think we thought we were in any danger.

Donger
07-25-2013, 04:36 PM
This is correct. It's legal to smoke here, yes, but you're not supposed to be doing it in public. That said, it's been a pretty public thing in downtown Denver for years now, so I'm not surprised that enforcement is still pretty lax.

Correct, since the 2000 law. But it's worse now.

Johnny Vegas
07-25-2013, 05:42 PM
great another thread all about Donger. He always fucking does this.

Donger
07-25-2013, 06:10 PM
great another thread all about Donger. He always ****ing does this.

:spock:

I think that's a slight exaggeration. This thread has been around a while. I happen to live in Colorado and voted against the legalization of pot. I recently had an experience where I saw first-hand the results of the legalization and posted about it.

How does that make this thread "all about me"?

BigCatDaddy
07-25-2013, 06:24 PM
It's never been my favorite place, but the wife wanted to expose the kids to the urban lifestyle a bit more.

LMAO

I envision this to the Donger family would be like a normally family going to a zoo.

cosmo20002
07-25-2013, 06:43 PM
We went down to the 16th Street Mall this weekend, and very quickly left after seeing and smelling all the pot heads. It was really quite disconcerting.

Geez, Donger, loosen your monocle a bit. You are one uptight chap.