will marijuana ever be legal???

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:27 pm

Moliere wrote:U.S. states' pot legalization not in line with international law: U.N. agency

Moves by some U.S. states to legalize marijuana are not in line with international drugs conventions, the U.N. anti-narcotics chief said on Wednesday, adding he would discuss the issue in Washington next week.

Residents of Oregon, Alaska, and the U.S. capital voted this month to allow the use of marijuana, boosting the legalization movement as cannabis usage is increasingly recognized by the American mainstream.

"I don't see how (the new laws) can be compatible with existing conventions," Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), told reporters.

Asked whether there was anything the UNODC could do about it, Fedotov said he would raise the problem next week with the U.S. State Department and other U.N. agencies.

Now the Republicans can jump in and support it just to stick it to the UN.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:38 am

Drazzil wrote:Now the Republicans can jump in and support it just to stick it to the UN.

Pro legalization has been pushed mainly by republicans in Michigan ever since medical marijuana has passed. Possibly even longer. Specifically they want to put a road subsidy tax on legal marijuana. (which doesn't make sense to me, even if taxing marijuana to the heavens does)

Though I must admit, you'd think that they could do a better job of legalizing the drug/plant/whatever, given they have controlled the legislature and governor for entire term. They seem to get all kinds of other bullshit passed, but this is one of the things they high horse about and never do (to this point).

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:36 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Drazzil wrote:Now the Republicans can jump in and support it just to stick it to the UN.
Pro legalization has been pushed mainly by republicans in Michigan ever since medical marijuana has passed. Possibly even longer. Specifically they want to put a road subsidy tax on legal marijuana. (which doesn't make sense to me, even if taxing marijuana to the heavens does)

Though I must admit, you'd think that they could do a better job of legalizing the drug/plant/whatever, given they have controlled the legislature and governor for entire term. They seem to get all kinds of other bullshit passed, but this is one of the things they high horse about and never do (to this point).

What happens if they legalize it and you grow your own? Would a road subsidy make more sense if the roads were lined with ditch weed?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:30 pm

Jeff V wrote:What happens if they legalize it and you grow your own? Would a road subsidy make more sense if the roads were lined with ditch weed?

They track legal (by state standards) growers right now for medical purposes. Taxing their plants shouldn't be a problem.

Which makes me question, if the state know who the legal growers are, why aren't the fed just going after the illegal in state growers and sellers? Is it laziness? "Check it out, these guys are registering where to find them and cataloging how badly they are breaking federal law. Why bother going after the hardcore criminals when we have database of people right here we can go after?"

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:22 pm

Was surprised it was not on the ballot in CA. Apparently the big push will be in 2016.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:54 pm

Oklahoma and Nebraska get all huffy:

Colorado’s top law enforcement official promises to vigorously defend the state’s historic law legalizing marijuana after Nebraska and Oklahoma asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional, saying the drug is freely flowing into neighboring states.

The two states filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to prevent Colorado from enforcing the measure known as Amendment 64, which was approved by voters in 2012 and allows recreational marijuana for adults over 21. The complaint says the measure runs afoul of federal law and therefore violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal laws trump state laws.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said the lawsuit was without merit.
...
The lawsuit says Colorado marijuana flows into neighboring states undermining their efforts to enforce their anti-marijuana laws.
...
The lawsuit says the sales have strained Nebraska and Oklahoma’s finances and legal systems. Police are spending more time and money making arrests, housing inmates, impounding vehicles, seizing drugs and handling other problems related to Colorado pot.

Bruning, a Republican, blamed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to enforce the federal law’s ban on drugs in Colorado.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:09 pm

Colorado has a new revenue source while neighbouring states go broke warring against drugs.

Win-win!

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:11 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Bruning, a Republican, blamed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to enforce the federal law’s ban on drugs in Colorado.

[/quote]

Because a shill is what you want for Attorney General (Coming from Michigan I, know.

)

http://www.republicanags.com/jon_bruning

As part of the RAGA, he strongly supports States Rights. He says so on youtube, so cbslocal must be mistaken.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:52 pm

If they win in court it could spell the end of retail pot in CO. It doesn't appear that it would lead to arrests for personal use. But yeah, if you are driving from CO into NE or OK be prepared to be stopped and make damn sure all of your vehicle safety lights, etc are in proper working order.

And we learned today that the Republican AGs in these states are big believers in the supremacy clause, down with new federalism!

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 3:21 pm

Good thing Colorado borders on 5 other states. Though I wouldn't want to take my chances in Utah.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:10 am

Maybe all of Colorado's crime are fleeing to bordering states because criminals can't stand the idea of people smoking pot?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/mari ... tus-report

What's particularly interesting is:

Decrease in Traffic Fatalities
Traffic fatalities went down in 2014, according to data released by the Colorado Department of Transportation,
vii
challenging claims that the legalization of marijuana would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities. In the first 11 months of 2014, the state had 436 traffic fatalities, a 3% drop from the 449 fatalities in the first 11 months of 2013. The decline in fatalities in 2014 marks a continuation of a 12-year long downward trend in traffic fatalities in the state of Colorado.
viii

No idea if correlation is the same as causation here. Stoned driving and the lack of reliable test for it is my one major concern for legalization.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:50 pm

Another bill doomed for failure?

Today, Representatives Jared Polis (D-CO) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced two bills that together would legalize and tax marijuana at the federal level. Representative Polis’s legislation, H.R. 1013, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, removes marijuana from the schedule set by the Controlled Substances Act; transitions marijuana oversight from the jurisdiction of the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and regulates marijuana like alcohol by inserting into the section of the U.S. Code governing “intoxicating liquors.” Representative Blumenauer’s legislation, H.R. 1014, the Marijuana Tax Revenue Act of 2015, creates a federal excise tax on non-medical marijuana sales and moves this quickly growing industry out of the shadows.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:49 am

Dude - I can totally see Russia from my house!

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:02 pm

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pot-le ... ls-prison/

What's that about states rights?

And here I was happy just [harumphing] the executive branch of federal government, meaning Obama's DoJ for the last 6 years. Am I now supposed to love my benevolent democrats masters again because it's insane republican establishment tyrany trying to go insane with power this time?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:47 pm

All I can say to Mayor Bowser is.....

and a double for this.

The reality is that the winds of change are blowing strong and someone visiting D.C. on the buck of the U.S. taxpayer should have no ability to override the free will exercised by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

The war on drugs is an absolute failure, and legalization of marijuana is taking place all across the country on a state level. Federal legislation was introduced in the House recently to legalize marijuana on a federal level.

If the federal government believes that it can stop the movement that is underway, they are sadly mistaken. Just as prohibition of alcohol was doomed to fail, so too was prohibition of marijuana.

If the will of 70 percent of voters can so easily be disregarded, perhaps we should question whether voting means anything at all.

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:49 pm

NHTSA release from earlier this month. Nothing surprising to regular users I expect, but non smokers might take some solace in how little effect THC seems to have on real driving skills.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:39 pm

Little effect? There's little solace to be had here:

• Marijuana users were about 25 percent more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers with no evidence of marijuana use.
• Other factors – such as age and gender – appear to account for the increased crash risk among marijuana users.
• Ongoing research will refine our understanding of when marijuana use by drivers increases the risk of crashing.

The study could not control for factors that could affect impairment by THC such the amount ingested, the potency ingested, prior experience with THC, and individual differences in response to THC.

“Drivers should never get behind the wheel impaired, and we know that marijuana impairs judgment, reaction times and awareness,” said Jeff Michael, NHTSA’s associate administrator for research and program development. “These findings highlight the importance of research to better understand how marijuana use affects drivers so states and communities can craft the best safety policies.”

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:38 am

I'm not sure what you're pointing out. I see that an increased crash rate with THC can be accounted for by age and gender factors. Given that there's a trend towards legalization, this seems like good news for anyone interested in road safety.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:52 am

RuperT, you're reading a conclusion and much higher degree of confidence than the study allows.

The study couldn't test for the amount of THC impairment. Unlike the range of risk association based on age and gender, the study lacked the information to assess intoxication levels in the same manner as alcohol use. So, young male stoners were 25% more likely to be in accidents. It could be because they were young and male, but there was insufficient data on their THC impairment to assess the relative impact of the factors.

It does not state that THC use has no effect on "real driving skills." In fact, it warns THC impairment is likely similar to the measurable impairment of alcohol intoxication. Since there is no measurable standard for THC Blood Level, the impairment effects of THC are not yet measurable in the same manner as alcohol use.

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:39 am

Make sure you read the whole thing here.

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:42 am

Also, I just meant 'real driving skills' to mean behavior that prevents a crash, as opposed to behavior that makes you take the wrong turn which is, ya know man... a wholly separate problem.
Sorry for the confusion.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:47 am

Yes, I read it. Do I have to do all the work for you?

Table 3 shows the unadjusted odds ratios for crash involvement for selected drug classes (THC, antidepressants, narcotic analgesics, sedatives and stimulants). It also shows the odds ratios for crash involvement for the two types of drugs: illegal drugs and legal (medicinal) drugs. From this table, it appears that THC is associated with a significantly elevated risk of crashing (by about 1.25 times or 25%). Similarly, the use of any illegal drugs is associated with a significant increase in the risk of crashing (by 1.21 times or 21%).

This finding suggests that these demographic variables may have co-varied with drug use and accounted for most of the increased crash risk. For example, if the THC-positive drivers were predominantly young males, their apparent crash risk may have been related to age and gender rather than use of THC.

The problem is that the relative factors of demographic factors were more measurable and well-studied than the impairment level from THC of the participants. This was based on self-reporting and trace studies of the existence of THC use, which isn't as finely measurable as BAC levels.

While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. The study limitations cited above, together with the findings of numerous other studies
using different and complementary methods, need to be carefully considered before more definitive conclusions about drug use and crash risk can be reached.

The findings of this study notwithstanding, the established body of scientific evidence on the subject of drug impairment indicates that in some situations, drugs other than alcohol can seriously impair driving ability. This study provides further confirmation that driver impairment is a very serious safety concern and that it is involves a very certain element of alcohol impairment
and a less-certain element of drug impairment.

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:13 am

What are we working on? I didn't post the specific link as a jab towards you, but our exchange made me look and realize the interesting stats were a bit buried.
That said, I don't follow your objection to the study, or my characterization of it. Impairment is fundamental to crash risk. The question is moot. Even if you are just as impaired with a single puff as with a hundred, the crash risk associated with even simple THC presence seems to be small, in toto.
I also don't follow the like comparison you make between alcohol impairment and THC impairment while driving. I don't think the data supports you, and I've never caught anyone serious expressing an opinion that stoned driving is anywhere near as risky as drunk driving. I'd make a poll if I wasn't so sick of being that guy.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:55 am

The study doesn't say it is small - it says they can't tell (immeasurable) because of various factors.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:35 am

From the NHTSA fact sheet:
- More likely to be involved in a crash at 0.08% BAL (alcohol) is 400%
- More likely to be involved in a crash at 0.12% BAL (alcohol) is 1200%
- More likely to be involved in a crash with measurable THC is 25%

Note that we currently let you drive with enough alcohol in your system to approach a 400% more likely chance to be involved in a crash.

From the NHTSA executive summary:
Drivers testing positive for THC were overrepresented in the crash-involved (case) population. However, when
demographic factors (age and gender) and alcohol use were controlled, the study did not find an increase in population-based
crash risk associated with THC use.

Bolded for Zarathud.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:54 am

Study also notes that it could not tell if THC use was recent or weeks prior to driving, and thus THC faded into the demographic factors. Without a way to measure current THC impairment similar to alcohol, it is not possible to isolate the effect of THC impairment similar to BAC for alcohol. Also if does not consider if the age and gender demographic correlates to heavier THC use.

Hence the ultimate conclusion that the demographic factors COULD explain much of the increased risk, not that those factors DID.

I've pointed this out three times now -- from the summary and the specific study tables.

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:45 am

Controlling for THC Positive Crashers Who Aren't Impaired would only ever make Really Stoned Crashes less likely, though. They're false positives, and removing them will only ever make stoned driving look less risky, it seems to me. I don't think that's the smoking gun.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:14 am

What matters is whether THC use while driving increases the risk within a demographic--does taking a toke shortly before driving increase my risk? When the study admits it can't measure active THC impairment, it concedes the demographics adjustments aren't conclusive.

You think it is conclusive, but that's not what it says if you look at the analysis. You might as well also say that lung cancer is based on age, not smoking. Young people don't smoke as much, and they don't have cancer. Demographics must be the explanation, right? Not at all.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:09 pm

Also, please let's note that the base accident rate is about 1 per 280,373 miles driven.
Fatality rates are about 1.5 for every 100,000,000 miles driven.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:21 pm

Now legal in DC.
So against federal law but legal in the federal district. Go figure.

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:30 pm

Zarathud wrote:What matters is whether THC use while driving increases the risk within a demographic--does taking a toke shortly before driving increase my risk? When the study admits it can't measure active THC impairment, it concedes the demographics adjustments aren't conclusive.

You think it is conclusive, but that's not what it says if you look at the analysis. You might as well also say that lung cancer is based on age, not smoking. Young people don't smoke as much, and they don't have cancer. Demographics must be the explanation, right? Not at all.

Where have I made any conclusions? I'm generally pretty careful not to assert false authority.
Your lung cancer analogy is not illustrative to me; I don't think there's an established "impairment factor" for a single cigarette as far as cancer is concerned, either.
For that matter, BAC isn't particularly consistent as far as measuring real impairment either, but good enough for government work I guess.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:35 pm

Big goings on in the Federal Senate today as a new bipartisan bill was introduced to reclassify Marijuana as a schedule II drug and remove the federal restrictions from the prescription and medicinal use of THC.

http://news.yahoo.com/landmark-medical- ... ef=Default

Of course we all know that this is just the first step to the Feds taxing the shit out of it and you all know what that means? Boston Pot Party!

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:39 pm

Whatever your opinions about its recreational use, classifying marijuana as Schedule 1 is untenable:

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.
.

Good luck arguing that it has no medicinal properties and cannot be used safely.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:05 pm

President Obama chimes in a bit:

President Barack Obama appeared to come closer than ever to endorsing legal marijuana in an interview posted Monday by VICE News...

...e said, as he did in a YouTube interview earlier this year, that incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders has devastated communities, particularly those "of color."

"It costs a huge amount of money to states and a lot of states are starting to figure that out," he said.

He said that "some very conservative Republicans realize this doesn't make sense ... they see the money and how costly it is to incarcerate.

"So we may actually be able to make some progress on the decriminalization side. At a certain point if enough states end up decriminalizing, then Congress may then reschedule marijuana," Obama said.

He added caveats, though.

He said he wanted to draw a difference between decriminalizing the drug and encouraging its use and said the concern about the abuse of drugs, legal and illegal, is a problem.

Trying to read between the lines, I'd say he's in favor of some kind of decriminalization but doesn't feel safe saying it yet.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:29 am

It'll be interesting to see what the penal system lobbyists have to say on the matter.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:32 am

Massachusetts Bill Would Legalize Marijuana and Hemp, Effectively Nullify Federal Prohibition

A bill introduced in Massachusetts would legalize marijuana and hemp for the general public, effectively nullifying the federal prohibition on the same.

House Bill 1561 (H1561) was introduced on March 10 by State Reps. David Rogers (D-Cambridge) and Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville) along with 13 bipartisan co-sponsors. If this bill is successful, Massachusetts would become the first state to legalize both hemp and marijuana for recreational purposes through the legislature rather than the popular vote.
...
Massachusetts has the opportunity to join five other states – Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont – that have already passed similar measures. Farmers in SE Colorado started harvesting the plant in 2013, and farmers in Vermont began harvesting in 2014, effectively nullifying federal restrictions on such agricultural activities. On Feb. 2, the Oregon hemp industry officially opened for business and one week later, the first license went to a small non-profit group who hopes to plant 25 acres this spring. The Tennessee Agricultural department recently put out a call for licensing, signaling that hemp farming will start soon there too.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:34 am

Am I way off in thinking that the private prison industry must be losing their minds right about now?

Yeah, it's expensive for the taxpayer, but it's a goldmine if you happen to make a business out of locking people up.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:53 am

GreenGoo wrote:Am I way off in thinking that the private prison industry must be losing their minds right about now?

Yeah, it's expensive for the taxpayer, but it's a goldmine if you happen to make a business out of locking people up.

Yes.

Simply stated, there are very few people in state or Federal prison for marijuana-related crimes. It is useful to look at all drug offenses for context. Among sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction in 2008, 18% were sentenced for drug offenses. We know from the most recent survey of inmates in state prison that only six percent (6%) of prisoners were for drug possession offenders, and just over four percent (4.4%) were drug offenders with no prior sentences.

In total, one tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of state prisoners were marijuana possession offenders with no prior sentences.

For Federal prisoners, who represent 13 percent of the total prison population, about half (51 percent) had a drug offense as the most serious offense in 2009. And Federal data show that the vast majority (99.8 percent) of Federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking.

In fact,

Many advocates of marijuana legalization point to the significant number of marijuana-related arrests, including for the sale, manufacturing, and possession of the drug, as an unnecessary burden on criminal justice system. While Federal, state, and local laws pertaining to marijuana do lead to criminal justice costs, it is important to understand how decriminalization or legalization might further exacerbate these costs. Alcohol, a legal, carefully regulated substance, provides useful context for this discussion. Arrests for alcohol-related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.5 million in 2010 — far more than arrests for all illegal drug use, and certainly far more than arrests for marijuana-related crimes. It is therefore fair to suggest that decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana might not reduce the drug’s burden to our justice and public health systems with respect to arrests, but might increase these costs by making the drug more readily available, leading to increase use, and ultimately to more arrests for violations of laws controlling its manufacture, sale, and use.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:43 am

While I am open to data, that runs completely counter to "common knowledge", which I fully admit is often wrong. Still, I'll need some corroboration to really turn my head around on this.

I guess my next question would be, if no one is going to jail over marijuana related offenses, what does it matter if it's legal or not? Let me rephrase. I don't see the pressure to legalize if marijuana is not seen as a problem by the legal system and less people are going to jail for it than those abusing alcohol. Also, is the war on drugs only on coke and heroin?

As well, I don't see a direct correlation between alcohol being legal (or illegal) and the enormous amount of crime associated with it, so I fail to see why I should be concerned that legalizing marijuana will cause some corresponding increase in the burden on the legal system they seem to be implying. I mean, they are literally suggesting that legalizing marijuana would cause a major increase in marijuana related crime beyond what currently illegal marijuana causes. While I can imagine a scenario where that happens, I just find it hard to believe.

On the plus side, if the justice system isn't disproportionately punishing people due to marijuana related crimes, that's a good thing. I still need to be convinced that isn't happening though.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:20 pm

GreenGoo wrote:if no one is going to jail over marijuana related offenses, what does it matter if it's legal or not? Let me rephrase. I don't see the pressure to legalize if marijuana is not seen as a problem by the legal system and less people are going to jail for it than those abusing alcohol.

1. Economics. Legalization moves black-market activity into the light and gives government a healthy cut of a large and lucrative business.

2. Respect for the law suffers when millions of citizens are deemed scofflaws who could conceivably have a very bad turn if their luck goes sour due to arbitrary enforcement.

3. Regulation. In principle, an open and regulated marketplace makes it easier to ensure that a quality product goes only to legal customers. In practice, regulation is too new to gauge its success in keeping weed away from the kiddies; all we can say is that they can't buy it directly, as they can from black marketeers.