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.

[Johnny Vegas]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

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]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

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]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

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]

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.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by Brock

1.7 Million? That sounds very, very low.

low population state.

[tooge]

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]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

Originally Posted by Bump

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.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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]

Originally Posted by tooge

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]

Originally Posted by Graystoke

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 ****ing 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]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

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.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by tooge

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".