Marijuana Legalized in Colorado and Washington

[Direckshun]

Sounds like a good thing.

Thoughts?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/co...26+Run+Blog%29

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

As Mike Riggs noted 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 53 percent of the vote, while an even larger majority, 56 percent, favored 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, unlike Washington's, 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 last week:

Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument 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, "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 nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 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, 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 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 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.

[Contrarian]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

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]

Originally Posted by Bump

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]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

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]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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]

Peyton Manning acquired 21 Papa John's franchise restaurants in the Denver area last week... what a bastard.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by teedubya

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]

Oh, by the way, before I go run some errands, you guys are slipping:

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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.

[Bo's Pelini]

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]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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]

I see how you guys are. Just ignore my thread.

[Graystoke]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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!)