I am glad for all the states that have had the courage and decency to demand that it's citizens have the right to pursue their happiness, but I would really like to see this blow up into a larger discussion nationwide, about State's Rights, the limited power of the Federal government, and mostly, the 10'th Amendment. Of course I don't see that happening but that's really where it needs to go. Freedom, bitchez.
Marijuana legalization victories could be short-lived
- Thread starter SCF
- Start date
Buddy Holly
Member
well dan that sounds well and good but this aint your average initiative. uncle sam will have his say before you do and if you think he is gonna lay down because you say its legal then maybe you should remove your head from your ass and join the rest of us in reality. quickly, please.
emphasis mine.
^ http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-07/lat-pulldowns-states-flex-their-muscles
the current fed gubmint is an illegal occupation of america. ppl are gettin' hip.
Buddy Holly
Member
well 2 things... 1) he isnt part of the chemical company dupont family so drop the kneejerk hysterics and deal with the facts lest you be just like the gov't shills that try to focus on buzz words and bullshit instead of real info.
and 2) the us gov't has their own study from the 70s, the one published during nixons 2nd term, and the 'white paper' and both say cannabis is not a serious issue. so they should just listen to themselves to know the deal!
fun fact: the white paper also lumps cocaine in with cannabis as being a non-issue. heroin was their big concern.
I think the tipping point has been tipped and I am assuming the fed will fight it as hard as they can. It won't matter.
In the very worst case I can think of the fed will prevent the two states from implementing the distribution and taxation schemes which suck anyway. What they cannot do is force state and local police to enforce state laws that no longer exist or to enforce federal laws. No federal agency, not the dea or the irs or even the military, can possibly start busting people for possession, nor can they run around the hills busting every little backwoods grower. They don't have the money or the manpower.
In the very worst case I can think of the fed will prevent the two states from implementing the distribution and taxation schemes which suck anyway. What they cannot do is force state and local police to enforce state laws that no longer exist or to enforce federal laws. No federal agency, not the dea or the irs or even the military, can possibly start busting people for possession, nor can they run around the hills busting every little backwoods grower. They don't have the money or the manpower.
Full Of Peace
Member
The government would be wise to allow this regulation, we are not violent people in general but the culture that surrounds the trade can be. The legal regulation of mj would make it a commodity that the violent drug pushers and thieves would not be able to profit on anymore, causing the potential for less crime in general and less funding for the organized criminals to fund their violent and bullying lifestyles.
They will have to chose to become legitimate and civilized or they will have to turn to harder crimes to maintain their lifestyle. Considering that very few communities are in favor of hard drugs, extortion and violent theft in their neighborhoods, legalization would have the effect of reducing overall crime and violence in general as well as allowing those who chose to be a part of the mj industry the opportunity to do so without having to get a convicts education and mentality.
But fear not, organized criminals. If quality of product is not available legally then there will be the effect of something similar to the moonshine business with people looking for better quality product on the black market. So these people and those who sell to minors can still be a target for the feds, just think about how effective the government could be by applying all their resources to just those two types of people, and to keeping inferior imported product from under pricing our good clean herb.
Don't allow your children to be corrupted and used by the criminal organizations, legalize herb and allow society the relief that comes with enjoying a nice joint in the evening.
They will have to chose to become legitimate and civilized or they will have to turn to harder crimes to maintain their lifestyle. Considering that very few communities are in favor of hard drugs, extortion and violent theft in their neighborhoods, legalization would have the effect of reducing overall crime and violence in general as well as allowing those who chose to be a part of the mj industry the opportunity to do so without having to get a convicts education and mentality.
But fear not, organized criminals. If quality of product is not available legally then there will be the effect of something similar to the moonshine business with people looking for better quality product on the black market. So these people and those who sell to minors can still be a target for the feds, just think about how effective the government could be by applying all their resources to just those two types of people, and to keeping inferior imported product from under pricing our good clean herb.
Don't allow your children to be corrupted and used by the criminal organizations, legalize herb and allow society the relief that comes with enjoying a nice joint in the evening.
dont forget we didnt just pass some law in co, we have 2 constitutional amendments... and the will of the people.
what do they say...
the straw that breaks the camel's back
well the camel's back has been broken.
my guess is the Gov will sit and watch, just like they said they will.
They will watch to see how this goes down, just like the mmj movement started
in Cali. When dispensaries and people started interstate traffic or just had to big britches in their opinion they busted them, and that's what the gov will do with legalization.
Someone will push it grow on large scale, export the nugs out of state and get busted.
those are the ones they will go after along with threatening/shutting state run stores down, like dispensaries in CA OR CO MO
Someone will do it, but that will not affect the layman, they will leave private citizans alone unless you are selling you work out of state and get popped while in transport or whatever.
My guess is they won't do anything for about 2yrs, that's how long it will take to collect the data they need. By that time it will be to late
We Won, They lost, They know it.
enjoy this moment in history.
I predicted legal herb in 2010 back in the 80's a few yrs off I was.
the straw that breaks the camel's back
well the camel's back has been broken.
my guess is the Gov will sit and watch, just like they said they will.
They will watch to see how this goes down, just like the mmj movement started
in Cali. When dispensaries and people started interstate traffic or just had to big britches in their opinion they busted them, and that's what the gov will do with legalization.
Someone will push it grow on large scale, export the nugs out of state and get busted.
those are the ones they will go after along with threatening/shutting state run stores down, like dispensaries in CA OR CO MO
Someone will do it, but that will not affect the layman, they will leave private citizans alone unless you are selling you work out of state and get popped while in transport or whatever.
My guess is they won't do anything for about 2yrs, that's how long it will take to collect the data they need. By that time it will be to late
We Won, They lost, They know it.
enjoy this moment in history.
I predicted legal herb in 2010 back in the 80's a few yrs off I was.
GL_Guerilla
Member
I agree. All hell can't stop us now, pandora's shit-box has been opened. by time the feds gather enough evidence to bust big ops, other states will be legalizing as well..
Its over.
It's a hell of a long ways from over. Read the following link to get some idea of how deeply the US is committed to keeping mj illegal. It will take a massive effort by congress to change all of the walls that they have carefully assembled over the years and our international commitments to keep it that way. We need a majority of states to make it legal, thereby pushing a bunch of worthless legislators to do their jobs. At this point, I think that the best we could possibly hope for is for the Fed's to stop enforcing things, because legalization at that level is probably still decades away. It is a hell of a good first step, though!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level
Kevin Sabet is a media whore for the prohibitionists. He was (past tense) a low-level bureaucrat with the ONDCP, and now is an "expert" on drug policy for the media. His opinion on what the feds will do is meaningless. He knows no more than anybody else, and because of his strong prohibitionist position, his opinion is in no way objective or based in any kind of reality.
the bottom line is we over grew them. we win. it is the beginning of victory but we win basically. those states are going to flood with so much business the feds will be powerless to stop it with out removing all DEA resources to those states. Which will leave the other 16 med states unwatched basically.
no matter what they do they are gonna have to just give up on pot. it is becoming more profitable to have legal than illegal. not enough variety of people and industries are benefiting from the way things are now; and as we saw in the election money is not quite everything. You can have a little bit less money and still win. People count more than money in the long run.
no matter what they do they are gonna have to just give up on pot. it is becoming more profitable to have legal than illegal. not enough variety of people and industries are benefiting from the way things are now; and as we saw in the election money is not quite everything. You can have a little bit less money and still win. People count more than money in the long run.
A new YouGov poll conducted for the Huffington Post has found that a whopping 59% of respondents nationwide support legalizing marijuana, with 51% saying they want it legalized, taxed, and regulated, and another 8% saying they it legalized — period.Only 26% opposed legalization, while another 15% were uncertain.
The YouGov results show stronger support for legalization than other polls, most famously a Gallup poll that showed support breaking 50% for the first time ever. Other polls in recent months, including ones from CBS News and the Pew Research Center, had support for legalization at 40% and 45%, respectively.
Some of the polling difference may be the result of the question structure. The YouGov poll gave respondents the option of supporting either legalization with taxation and regulation or without, possibly garnering support from respondents concerned about wide-open legalization.
Another difference is that the YouGov poll was conducted online instead of using live interviewers over the phone. This relatively new polling method used a 1,000-person “sample drawn from YouGov's opt-in online panel that was selected to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult US population.” The poll has a margin of error slightly larger than most other polls, at +/- 4.2%.
Breaking down the demographics, support for taxed and regulated legalization was remarkably consistent across age groups, from a low of 49% among 45-to-64-year-olds to 53% among those 65 and older, with other age groups coming in between. But support for untaxed and unregulated legalization was more age specific, with the highest levels of support coming from the 45-to-64 age group (13%) and those under age 29 (9%).
By political affiliation, 69% of Democrats supported legalization (either regulated and taxed or not), as did 58% of independents and 47% of Republicans. That latter figure is higher than the figure for Republicans who opposed legalization (44%).
Only 38% of respondents said they had used marijuana, although another 8% refused to answer.
Somewhat surprisingly, support for medical marijuana was only slightly higher than support for legalization, with some 64% saying they supported it and 23% saying they were opposed.
Whether the YouGov poll is an outlier because of its relatively new polling methods remains to be seen, but it appears to be yet another in an increasingly long line of polls showing support for marijuana legalization trending upward.
http://beforeitsnews.com/marijuana-...zation-polls-highest-support-yet-2443540.html
this is exciting. they will not lay down on this though, too much $$$ involved.
these two states bless us with acceptance by more and more who aren't affected by reefer madness.
another pre election poll shows how we are trending...
Most Statewide Marijuana Initiatives Leading In Polls
WASHINGTON, DC — Four of the six statewide marijuana initiatives appearing on the November 2012 ballot are solidly favored among likely voters.
Voters in six states - Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, and Washington – will be deciding on marijuana-specific ballot measures this November. In Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 3, a statewide proposal that seeks to allow for the physician-recommended possession and state-licensed distribution of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Arkansas voters will decide on a similar measure, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act of 2012. Montana voters will decide on Initiative Referendum 124, which is a referendum on Senate Bill 423 – a 2011 measure that seeks to restrict the state’s 2004 voter approved medical cannabis law.
Colorado voters will decide on Amendment 64, which immediately allows for the legal possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and/or the cultivation of up to six cannabis plants by those persons age 21 and over. Longer-term, the measure seeks to establish regulations governing the commercial production and distribution of marijuana by licensed retailers. Oregon voters will decide on Measure 80, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, which provides for the state-licensed production and retail sale of cannabis to adults. The measure does not impose state-licensing or taxation requirements upon those who wish to cultivate cannabis for non-commercial purposes. Finally, in Washington, voters will decide on Initiative 502, which seeks to regulate the production and sale of limited amounts of marijuana for adults. The measure also removes criminal penalties specific to the adult possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for personal use.
According to the most recently available polling, several of these measures hold firm leads among likely voters. In Colorado, 51 percent of respondents say that they are backing Amendment 64, according to the latest SurveyUSA telephone poll of 615 likely voters. In Massachusetts, a strong majority of likely voters support Question 3. A newly released Suffolk University/7News poll of 600 likely voters finds that 59 percent of respondents support the initiative versus 35 percent who oppose it. In Montana, a majority of likely voters do not support enacting limits on the state’s medical marijuana law, according to a just-published poll of 656 likely voters. And in Washington, nearly six out of ten voters say they intend to decide in favor of I-502, according to a Survey USA poll released late last week. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said that they will vote ‘yes’ on the measure, versus only 34 percent who said they would vote ‘no.’ Nine percent remain undecided.
In Oregon, a July poll not specific to the initiative conducted by Public Policy Polling reported that only 43 percent of Oregonians believed that cannabis use should be legal, versus 46 percent who endorsed it remaining illegal. A more recent Survey USA poll of 552 likely voters reported that 37 percent of respondents favored Measure 80, while 41 percent said that they opposed it. Democrat voters said that they backed the measure by a vote of 2 to 1, while Republicans opposed it by a margin of 4 to 1.
No recent polling is available for Arkansas.
The YouGov results show stronger support for legalization than other polls, most famously a Gallup poll that showed support breaking 50% for the first time ever. Other polls in recent months, including ones from CBS News and the Pew Research Center, had support for legalization at 40% and 45%, respectively.
Some of the polling difference may be the result of the question structure. The YouGov poll gave respondents the option of supporting either legalization with taxation and regulation or without, possibly garnering support from respondents concerned about wide-open legalization.
Another difference is that the YouGov poll was conducted online instead of using live interviewers over the phone. This relatively new polling method used a 1,000-person “sample drawn from YouGov's opt-in online panel that was selected to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult US population.” The poll has a margin of error slightly larger than most other polls, at +/- 4.2%.
Breaking down the demographics, support for taxed and regulated legalization was remarkably consistent across age groups, from a low of 49% among 45-to-64-year-olds to 53% among those 65 and older, with other age groups coming in between. But support for untaxed and unregulated legalization was more age specific, with the highest levels of support coming from the 45-to-64 age group (13%) and those under age 29 (9%).
By political affiliation, 69% of Democrats supported legalization (either regulated and taxed or not), as did 58% of independents and 47% of Republicans. That latter figure is higher than the figure for Republicans who opposed legalization (44%).
Only 38% of respondents said they had used marijuana, although another 8% refused to answer.
Somewhat surprisingly, support for medical marijuana was only slightly higher than support for legalization, with some 64% saying they supported it and 23% saying they were opposed.
Whether the YouGov poll is an outlier because of its relatively new polling methods remains to be seen, but it appears to be yet another in an increasingly long line of polls showing support for marijuana legalization trending upward.
http://beforeitsnews.com/marijuana-...zation-polls-highest-support-yet-2443540.html
this is exciting. they will not lay down on this though, too much $$$ involved.
these two states bless us with acceptance by more and more who aren't affected by reefer madness.
another pre election poll shows how we are trending...
Most Statewide Marijuana Initiatives Leading In Polls
WASHINGTON, DC — Four of the six statewide marijuana initiatives appearing on the November 2012 ballot are solidly favored among likely voters.
Voters in six states - Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, and Washington – will be deciding on marijuana-specific ballot measures this November. In Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 3, a statewide proposal that seeks to allow for the physician-recommended possession and state-licensed distribution of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Arkansas voters will decide on a similar measure, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act of 2012. Montana voters will decide on Initiative Referendum 124, which is a referendum on Senate Bill 423 – a 2011 measure that seeks to restrict the state’s 2004 voter approved medical cannabis law.
Colorado voters will decide on Amendment 64, which immediately allows for the legal possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and/or the cultivation of up to six cannabis plants by those persons age 21 and over. Longer-term, the measure seeks to establish regulations governing the commercial production and distribution of marijuana by licensed retailers. Oregon voters will decide on Measure 80, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, which provides for the state-licensed production and retail sale of cannabis to adults. The measure does not impose state-licensing or taxation requirements upon those who wish to cultivate cannabis for non-commercial purposes. Finally, in Washington, voters will decide on Initiative 502, which seeks to regulate the production and sale of limited amounts of marijuana for adults. The measure also removes criminal penalties specific to the adult possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for personal use.
According to the most recently available polling, several of these measures hold firm leads among likely voters. In Colorado, 51 percent of respondents say that they are backing Amendment 64, according to the latest SurveyUSA telephone poll of 615 likely voters. In Massachusetts, a strong majority of likely voters support Question 3. A newly released Suffolk University/7News poll of 600 likely voters finds that 59 percent of respondents support the initiative versus 35 percent who oppose it. In Montana, a majority of likely voters do not support enacting limits on the state’s medical marijuana law, according to a just-published poll of 656 likely voters. And in Washington, nearly six out of ten voters say they intend to decide in favor of I-502, according to a Survey USA poll released late last week. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said that they will vote ‘yes’ on the measure, versus only 34 percent who said they would vote ‘no.’ Nine percent remain undecided.
In Oregon, a July poll not specific to the initiative conducted by Public Policy Polling reported that only 43 percent of Oregonians believed that cannabis use should be legal, versus 46 percent who endorsed it remaining illegal. A more recent Survey USA poll of 552 likely voters reported that 37 percent of respondents favored Measure 80, while 41 percent said that they opposed it. Democrat voters said that they backed the measure by a vote of 2 to 1, while Republicans opposed it by a margin of 4 to 1.
No recent polling is available for Arkansas.
Those who have argued for decades that legalizing and taxing weed would be better than a costly, failed U.S. drug war now have their chance to prove it in Colorado and Washington.
DENVER — First came marijuana as medicine. Now comes legal pot for the people.
Those who have argued for decades that legalizing and taxing weed would be better than a costly, failed U.S. drug war have their chance to prove it, as Colorado and Washington became the first states to allow pot for recreational use.
While the measures earned support from broad swaths of the electorate in both states Tuesday, they are likely to face resistance from federal drug warriors. As of Wednesday, authorities did not say whether they would challenge the new laws.
Pot advocates say a fight is exactly what they want.
"I think we are at a tipping point on marijuana policy," said Brian Vicente, co-author of Colorado's marijuana measure. "We are going to see whether marijuana prohibition survives, or whether we should try a new and more sensible approach."
Less than 48 hours after the measure's approval, the National Marijuana Business Conference convened in Denver on Thursday. Business owners and others in the industry planned two days of lectures and discussion about what the ballot measures mean for businesses. Discussions include navigating regulations and banking restrictions, along with tips for handling federal drug raids.
Soon after the measures passed Tuesday night, cheering people poured out of bars in Denver, the tangy scent of pot filling the air, and others in Seattle lit up in celebration.
Authorities in Colorado, however, urged caution. "Federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly," said Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who opposed the measure.
As the initial celebration dies down and the process to implement the laws progresses over the next year, other states and countries will be watching to see if the measures can both help reduce money going to drug cartels and raise it for governments.
Governments in Latin America where drugs are produced for the U.S. market were largely quiet about the measures, but the main adviser to Mexico's president-elect said the new laws will force the U.S. and his country to reassess how they fight cross-border pot smuggling.
Analysts said that there would likely be an impact on cartels in Mexico that send pot to the U.S., but differed on how soon and how much.
Both measures call for the drug to be heavily taxed, with the profits headed to state coffers. Colorado would devote the potential tax revenue first to school construction, while Washington's sends pot taxes to an array of health programs.
Estimates vary widely on how much they would raise. Colorado officials anticipate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year. Washington analysts estimated legal pot could produce nearly $2 billion over five years.
Both state estimates came with big caveats: The current illegal marijuana market is hard to gauge and any revenue would be contingent upon federal authorities allowing commercial pot sales in the first place, something that is very much still in question.
Both measures remove criminal penalties for adults over 21 possessing small amounts of the drug — the boldest rejection of pot prohibition laws passed across the country in the 1930s.
Pot has come a long way since. In the 1960s, it was a counterculture fixture. In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Twenty-five years later, California approved medical marijuana. Now, 17 states and Washington, D.C., allow it.
Meanwhile, many more cities either took pot possession crimes off the books or directed officers to make marijuana arrests a low priority.
On Tuesday night, broad sections of the electorate in Colorado and Washington backed the measures, some because they thought the drug war had failed and others because they viewed potential revenue as a boon for their states in lean times. A similar measure in Oregon failed.
"People think little old ladies with glaucoma should be able to use marijuana. This is different. This is a step further than anything we have seen to date," said Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor who has studied the history of pot prohibition.
The Justice Department says it is evaluating the measures. When California was considering legalization in 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder said it would be a "significant impediment" to joint federal and local efforts to combat drug traffickers.
Federal agents have cracked down on medical pot dispensaries in states where it is legal, including California and Washington. Individual pot users may not be immediately impacted, as authorities have long focused on dismantling trafficking operations.
Peter Bensinger, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration from 1976 to 1981, and other former DEA heads urged Holder to make more noise this year about the pot votes. Colorado was a critical state for President Barack Obama's re-election.
Now, he said, "I can't see the Justice Department doing anything other than enforce the law. There's no other out."
Brian Smith of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, which will implement the new law, said officials are waiting anxiously to find out what federal law enforcement authorities plan to do. "They have been silent," Smith said.
Both states will have about a year to come up with rules for their legal pot systems.
In Mexico, which produces much of the pot that gets into the U.S. and where cartels and the government are embroiled in a yearslong deadly battle, the man in charge of Enrique Pena Nieto's presidential transition said the administration opposed legalization.
"These important modifications change somewhat the rules of the games in the relationship with the United States," Luis Videgaray told Radio Formula.
A former high-ranking official in the country's internal intelligence service who has studied the potential effects of legalization said he was optimistic that the measures would damage the cartels, possibly cutting profits from $6 billion to $4.6 billion.
Alejandro Hope, now an analyst at the think tank Mexican Competitiveness Institute, said among the complicating factors could be whether a strong U.S. crackdown on legal pot could negate all but the smallest effects on the cartels.
In Seattle, John Davis, a medical marijuana provider, called passage of the state's measure "a significant movement in the right direction." But he said he expected some confrontation with federal authorities.
"This law does not prevent conflicts," he said, adding that its passage "will highlight the necessity to find some kind of resolution between state and federal laws."
http://news.msn.com/politics/pot-votes-in-2-states-challenge-us-drug-war
DENVER — First came marijuana as medicine. Now comes legal pot for the people.
Those who have argued for decades that legalizing and taxing weed would be better than a costly, failed U.S. drug war have their chance to prove it, as Colorado and Washington became the first states to allow pot for recreational use.
While the measures earned support from broad swaths of the electorate in both states Tuesday, they are likely to face resistance from federal drug warriors. As of Wednesday, authorities did not say whether they would challenge the new laws.
Pot advocates say a fight is exactly what they want.
"I think we are at a tipping point on marijuana policy," said Brian Vicente, co-author of Colorado's marijuana measure. "We are going to see whether marijuana prohibition survives, or whether we should try a new and more sensible approach."
Less than 48 hours after the measure's approval, the National Marijuana Business Conference convened in Denver on Thursday. Business owners and others in the industry planned two days of lectures and discussion about what the ballot measures mean for businesses. Discussions include navigating regulations and banking restrictions, along with tips for handling federal drug raids.
Soon after the measures passed Tuesday night, cheering people poured out of bars in Denver, the tangy scent of pot filling the air, and others in Seattle lit up in celebration.
Authorities in Colorado, however, urged caution. "Federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly," said Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who opposed the measure.
As the initial celebration dies down and the process to implement the laws progresses over the next year, other states and countries will be watching to see if the measures can both help reduce money going to drug cartels and raise it for governments.
Governments in Latin America where drugs are produced for the U.S. market were largely quiet about the measures, but the main adviser to Mexico's president-elect said the new laws will force the U.S. and his country to reassess how they fight cross-border pot smuggling.
Analysts said that there would likely be an impact on cartels in Mexico that send pot to the U.S., but differed on how soon and how much.
Both measures call for the drug to be heavily taxed, with the profits headed to state coffers. Colorado would devote the potential tax revenue first to school construction, while Washington's sends pot taxes to an array of health programs.
Estimates vary widely on how much they would raise. Colorado officials anticipate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year. Washington analysts estimated legal pot could produce nearly $2 billion over five years.
Both state estimates came with big caveats: The current illegal marijuana market is hard to gauge and any revenue would be contingent upon federal authorities allowing commercial pot sales in the first place, something that is very much still in question.
Both measures remove criminal penalties for adults over 21 possessing small amounts of the drug — the boldest rejection of pot prohibition laws passed across the country in the 1930s.
Pot has come a long way since. In the 1960s, it was a counterculture fixture. In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Twenty-five years later, California approved medical marijuana. Now, 17 states and Washington, D.C., allow it.
Meanwhile, many more cities either took pot possession crimes off the books or directed officers to make marijuana arrests a low priority.
On Tuesday night, broad sections of the electorate in Colorado and Washington backed the measures, some because they thought the drug war had failed and others because they viewed potential revenue as a boon for their states in lean times. A similar measure in Oregon failed.
"People think little old ladies with glaucoma should be able to use marijuana. This is different. This is a step further than anything we have seen to date," said Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor who has studied the history of pot prohibition.
The Justice Department says it is evaluating the measures. When California was considering legalization in 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder said it would be a "significant impediment" to joint federal and local efforts to combat drug traffickers.
Federal agents have cracked down on medical pot dispensaries in states where it is legal, including California and Washington. Individual pot users may not be immediately impacted, as authorities have long focused on dismantling trafficking operations.
Peter Bensinger, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration from 1976 to 1981, and other former DEA heads urged Holder to make more noise this year about the pot votes. Colorado was a critical state for President Barack Obama's re-election.
Now, he said, "I can't see the Justice Department doing anything other than enforce the law. There's no other out."
Brian Smith of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, which will implement the new law, said officials are waiting anxiously to find out what federal law enforcement authorities plan to do. "They have been silent," Smith said.
Both states will have about a year to come up with rules for their legal pot systems.
In Mexico, which produces much of the pot that gets into the U.S. and where cartels and the government are embroiled in a yearslong deadly battle, the man in charge of Enrique Pena Nieto's presidential transition said the administration opposed legalization.
"These important modifications change somewhat the rules of the games in the relationship with the United States," Luis Videgaray told Radio Formula.
A former high-ranking official in the country's internal intelligence service who has studied the potential effects of legalization said he was optimistic that the measures would damage the cartels, possibly cutting profits from $6 billion to $4.6 billion.
Alejandro Hope, now an analyst at the think tank Mexican Competitiveness Institute, said among the complicating factors could be whether a strong U.S. crackdown on legal pot could negate all but the smallest effects on the cartels.
In Seattle, John Davis, a medical marijuana provider, called passage of the state's measure "a significant movement in the right direction." But he said he expected some confrontation with federal authorities.
"This law does not prevent conflicts," he said, adding that its passage "will highlight the necessity to find some kind of resolution between state and federal laws."
http://news.msn.com/politics/pot-votes-in-2-states-challenge-us-drug-war
Colorado AG casts doubt on taxes for legalized pot
3 hr ago| By Alex Dobuzinskis of Reuters
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers says additional voter approval is required in order to collect taxes on marijuana sales.
Colorado's Republican attorney general said the state cannot collect taxes of up to 15 percent on pot sales without further voter approval, casting doubt on how quickly a new state measure legalizing recreational marijuana can be implemented.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has said that he would implement a voter-approved constitutional amendment legalizing the recreational use of marijuana by adults, although he personally opposed it. But he said the language of the measure conflicts with the state's Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
Washington state and Colorado became the first in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana on Tuesday, putting both states on a possible collision course with the federal government, which says pot remains an illegal narcotic under U.S. law. A similar move to legalize pot in Oregon failed.
But in a blow to backers of Colorado's pot legalization measure, Suthers faulted the pro-pot campaign for telling voters the state would tax pot sales and raise up to $40 million a year for schools.
"In fact, Amendment 64 did not comply with required language under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and no such tax will be imposed," Suthers said in a statement on Wednesday, citing a 1992 law that bars state officials from raising taxes without a vote of the people.
He said the state legislature would have to approve a tax of up to 15 percent on pot sales and then put that before voters.
The text of Colorado's amendment, which was approved by over 54 percent of state voters, said the legislature would have to impose a special tax of up to 15 percent on the drug.
But Suthers' office said the measure did not contain the precise language called for under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which specifies that voters must be asked "Shall ... taxes be increased" a certain amount of dollars per year.
PROPONENTS DO NOT EXPECT PROBLEMS
Both the measures in Washington state and Colorado would allow individuals to have up to an ounce of pot and call on state officials to create a system to regulate and tax cannabis, which would be sold to adults over age 21 at special stores.
Brian Vicente, co-director of the campaign team behind the measure, said he does not anticipate any problems.
"It's just unfathomable that the legislature would not act on this direct mandate from Colorado voters to tax marijuana sales," he said, adding that voters would approve the tax when it comes before them next year, in advance of the first recreational pot stores opening in the state in 2014.
"We would remind the governor as well as Attorney General Suthers that they work for the people of Colorado, not the federal government, so they need to respect the will of the voters," Vicente said.
Eric Brown, a spokesman for Colorado's Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper, said the governor would speak by phone on Friday with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about the measure.
Hickenlooper, who also personally opposed the amendment, has pledged to respect the will of the voters.
Colorado House of Representatives speaker designate Mark Ferrandino, a Democrat, said on Thursday the legislature in 2013 would "move forward on the regulatory structure" for pot.
In Washington state, newly elected Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat who had opposed legalization, said he would also work to uphold the state's new pot laws.
"When the time is appropriate, I will meet with my staff and reach out to interested parties, including federal authorities, to develop a plan to move forward and defend the will of the people," he said in a statement.
The U.S. Justice Department has said in a statement that it is studying the initiatives and had no further comment. Federal authorities have in the past conducted raids at medical marijuana dispensaries in several of the 18 states that allow pot as medicine.
http://news.msn.com/politics/colorado-ag-casts-doubt-on-taxes-for-legalized-pot
ooops!
3 hr ago| By Alex Dobuzinskis of Reuters
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers says additional voter approval is required in order to collect taxes on marijuana sales.
Colorado's Republican attorney general said the state cannot collect taxes of up to 15 percent on pot sales without further voter approval, casting doubt on how quickly a new state measure legalizing recreational marijuana can be implemented.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has said that he would implement a voter-approved constitutional amendment legalizing the recreational use of marijuana by adults, although he personally opposed it. But he said the language of the measure conflicts with the state's Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
Washington state and Colorado became the first in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana on Tuesday, putting both states on a possible collision course with the federal government, which says pot remains an illegal narcotic under U.S. law. A similar move to legalize pot in Oregon failed.
But in a blow to backers of Colorado's pot legalization measure, Suthers faulted the pro-pot campaign for telling voters the state would tax pot sales and raise up to $40 million a year for schools.
"In fact, Amendment 64 did not comply with required language under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and no such tax will be imposed," Suthers said in a statement on Wednesday, citing a 1992 law that bars state officials from raising taxes without a vote of the people.
He said the state legislature would have to approve a tax of up to 15 percent on pot sales and then put that before voters.
The text of Colorado's amendment, which was approved by over 54 percent of state voters, said the legislature would have to impose a special tax of up to 15 percent on the drug.
But Suthers' office said the measure did not contain the precise language called for under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which specifies that voters must be asked "Shall ... taxes be increased" a certain amount of dollars per year.
PROPONENTS DO NOT EXPECT PROBLEMS
Both the measures in Washington state and Colorado would allow individuals to have up to an ounce of pot and call on state officials to create a system to regulate and tax cannabis, which would be sold to adults over age 21 at special stores.
Brian Vicente, co-director of the campaign team behind the measure, said he does not anticipate any problems.
"It's just unfathomable that the legislature would not act on this direct mandate from Colorado voters to tax marijuana sales," he said, adding that voters would approve the tax when it comes before them next year, in advance of the first recreational pot stores opening in the state in 2014.
"We would remind the governor as well as Attorney General Suthers that they work for the people of Colorado, not the federal government, so they need to respect the will of the voters," Vicente said.
Eric Brown, a spokesman for Colorado's Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper, said the governor would speak by phone on Friday with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about the measure.
Hickenlooper, who also personally opposed the amendment, has pledged to respect the will of the voters.
Colorado House of Representatives speaker designate Mark Ferrandino, a Democrat, said on Thursday the legislature in 2013 would "move forward on the regulatory structure" for pot.
In Washington state, newly elected Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat who had opposed legalization, said he would also work to uphold the state's new pot laws.
"When the time is appropriate, I will meet with my staff and reach out to interested parties, including federal authorities, to develop a plan to move forward and defend the will of the people," he said in a statement.
The U.S. Justice Department has said in a statement that it is studying the initiatives and had no further comment. Federal authorities have in the past conducted raids at medical marijuana dispensaries in several of the 18 states that allow pot as medicine.
http://news.msn.com/politics/colorado-ag-casts-doubt-on-taxes-for-legalized-pot
ooops!
I
icon
was just wondering if this means hemp would be legal in these sates too...could be a start to get the hemp industry rolling that will create alot of jobs & revanue?
White-rhino
Member
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the statement by the DEA is blatantly false.
Congress didn't determine that its a schedule 1 substance, the DEA did. The act gave them that responsibility. And the could remove it from the list in an hour, without congress getting involved at all.
What congress did say was:
Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
---
Sounds like alcohol is a schedule 1 substance, by that definition. Further, its more of a plant than a "drug". Further, last I checked doctors were prescribing it to treat medical conditions. So finding #2 throws it off the list.
Finding #3 - The lethal dose is 50 pounds. Less lethal than aspirin.
Congress didn't determine that its a schedule 1 substance, the DEA did. The act gave them that responsibility. And the could remove it from the list in an hour, without congress getting involved at all.
What congress did say was:
Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
---
Sounds like alcohol is a schedule 1 substance, by that definition. Further, its more of a plant than a "drug". Further, last I checked doctors were prescribing it to treat medical conditions. So finding #2 throws it off the list.
Finding #3 - The lethal dose is 50 pounds. Less lethal than aspirin.
we all know its about the money.. The DEA is fully aware of the medical benefits from Cannabis they choose to ignore it so they can collect there war on drugs money..Its only a matter of time.. I thought I would never see this in my lifetime I'm happy to say that I did live long enough to see it start..I hope I'm here is see it offered right next to Don Julio..I would still never buy it at any retail shop.. I will support the local mom and pop specialty shops. These people will always have a better product and service..Like my stuff you wont find it at yuor local watering hole lol..
