Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday November 18 2016, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the isn't-smoking-indoors-illegal? dept.

A measure that would make Denver the first city in the United States to legalize the use of marijuana in such venues as clubs, bars and restaurants is expected to get enough votes to pass, backers and opponents of the initiative said on Tuesday.

The announcement comes amid a string of victories for proponents of medical and recreational marijuana use, with voters in California and Massachusetts approving ballot initiatives legalizing recreational use of the drug last week.

The Colorado measure will permit private businesses to allow marijuana use by adults in designated areas with certain exceptions. Backers of the initiative said it would make Denver the first city in the country where cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy the drug socially without fear of arrest.

"This is a victory for cannabis consumers who, like alcohol consumers, simply want the option to enjoy cannabis in social settings," Kayvan Khalatbari, a Denver businessman and lead proponent of the so-called I-300 measure, said in a statement on Tuesday.

More:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-marijuana-idUSKBN13A2YP?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
https://web.archive.org/web/20161117081010/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-marijuana-idUSKBN13A2YP?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @07:32PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 18 2016, @07:32PM (#429042)

    Who says that the marijuana has to be smoked inside or smoked at all?

    Put down the blunt, go outside until your head clears and then reread the frickin article summary posted above. Focus your concentration and I think you can manage to read these words up there:

    such venues as clubs, bars and restaurants

    Now it is true they could just limit themselves to brownies and such, but that doesn't seem likely considering the culture around the drug.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:43PM (#429053)

    Now it is true they could just limit themselves to brownies and such

    They would have to, by law, unless they are at a place that qualifies as an exemption to the "Clean Indoor Air Act". If you check the Act, it specifically says that smoking is prohibited in restaurants and bars (clubs are also not an exemption).

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @07:55PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 18 2016, @07:55PM (#429065)

      Considering that this whole discussion is about openly consuming a product that is still a Schedule I controlled substance, pardon me if I express my doubts that strict adherence to law is really going to be all that important to backers of this political initiative.

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 18 2016, @08:07PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:07PM (#429077) Journal

        And with that, the American Revolution was retroactively erased from history.

        • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @08:30PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:30PM (#429093)

          No, I ain't letting you get away with that one. This case already went to the SCOTUS, what you idiots declare they absolute unquestionable lawgivers and you lost. But somehow Federalism is a sacred thing to be protected when it allows YOU to ignore Federal law, ignore Supreme Court decisions, anything. It is neo-confederate nonsense when a Red State wants to opt out of a federal dictate. I say we should urge President Trump to send swarms to CO and arrest everyone involved and seize every asset. Same for the "Sanctuary Cities" opting out of Federal immigration laws.

          Then, after six months or so, send emissaries to Congress and the Prog Media (i,.e. all of it that Facebook and Google hasn't declared "Fake News" by then...) and offer to open an honest debate on Federalism, how much Federal power to devolve back to the States. You would like the FDA and DEA powers sent down to the States. Well we have a few ideas of powers to devolve too. Lets have the discussion and work something out. Lets make a deal, what are you willing to give up to get your dope? But you win, we lose, regardless, should not be an option anymore.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 18 2016, @08:46PM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:46PM (#429099) Journal

            Ah, ok, calm down. I figured you were going hard authoritarianism. I think enforcing the 10th Amendment properly would be a good change. Since this isn't interstate commerce, the Controlled Substances Act should be struck down for violating the 10th Amendment.

            Sanctuary cities? Sure, have at them. Now, I don't have enough time to go full constitutional lawyer here, (nor do I understand the basis for sanctuary cities) but remember that despite federalism, the 14 Amendment does still apply the 4th to citizens of the Several States. So you can't exactly go door to door asking for “papers, please.”

            What else did you have in mind?

            Now, talking about President Trump, heh. Oh, haha! What if he said that sending federal troops to CO was bad business, sort of like he said that the bathroom law in NC was bad business? I don't think Trump is who you wish him to be, but we'll see!

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @09:14PM

              by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 18 2016, @09:14PM (#429116)

              Exactly. I'm saying my team on the Right should take an absolutist position as an opening position in the negotiations. And that sort of no holds barred negotiating does seem to be something Mr. Trump understands. Only by making the left tremble in terror of what the Federal Government, that they were so proud of as they twisted it into a monster, could do to THEM is there any hope of convincing them of the need to unmake it. So long as it only get unleashed upon people they consider subhuman they don't see the problem, and won't until it is far too late. But it is a truism that monsters always destroy their creator eventually.

              And yea, in a sane world the 10th Amendment should have not only prevented the Controlled Substances Act, it should have prevented the DEA and FDA from existing at all. For that reason and many more, I now accept that the Constitution is dead. You guys murdered it long ago. Like you guys, I will still invoke it in an argument when it is useful, but am under no delusion that it is still binding on anyone. The only hope to restore something like the Rule of Law again is to accept the fact of its death, accept that there is now no limit on Federal power but the will to use it, and muster the will (against every instinct that we on the Right have) to use it to abuse the holy hell out of you guys with the weapon you made until you too want to chain the government.

              Is this likely to end badly? Yes. History records no cases of survival in a situation as bad as the one we find ourselves in. But maybe it is different in ${currentyear}. We better hope so.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 18 2016, @09:40PM

                by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday November 18 2016, @09:40PM (#429129) Journal

                I don't know who you think I am. I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party. The Constitution was dead when I got here, bro, had been for a while.

                Of course I'm used to the fact that being LGBTOMGWTFBBQ and a cannabis consumer puts me squarely NOT on your side.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @10:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @10:23PM (#429148)

                ... and muster the will (against every instinct that we on the Right have) to use it to abuse the holy hell out of you guys

                Sure buddy, the Right hasn't been joyfully suppressing others for a long time, yup uh huh. You will relish the opportunity and bask in the self-righteous "justice" you hand out. I have met VERY few Christians that even seriously attempt to follow Jesus, and a majority of the things you folks on the "right" want is all about suppressing the freedoms of others. The only moral ground you possibly have is with abortion, since most people agree that killing a life is bad, but then you drop that moral high ground and let the poor suffer because "they have the same opportunities to better themselves" by bootstrapping upwards. For a majority of US citizens you and your fellow conservatives are authoritarian extremists brainwashed by bible thumping priests and politicians to do their bidding.

                As for the 10th amendment, I generally agree with you about Federal overreach and would prefer states determine certain things for themselves. However, there is a key component you seem to be neglecting:

                The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                "or to the people" is a big caveat in there, my interpretation (IANAL) is that a general vote could delegate such powers to the Fed. So Civil Rights, that is one that must be federal, any states that want to violate a person's civil rights can piss off. I would totally welcome a strict 10th interpretation, assuming a popular vote could decide contentious issues.

                Also, a quick search showed the rationale the judges used and while tenuous the decision was still based on the constitution:

                The Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s choice to have an abortion fell within constitutional privacy rights. While there is no explicit grant of privacy rights, the Court has found a guarantee of personal privacy rooted in several parts of the US Constitution. Personal privacy exists in the areas of marriage, contraception, family relationships and child rearing. The Fourteenth Amendment bars a state from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. This includes protecting the fundamental right to privacy.

                Now, we can argue about how much "right to privacy" covers, but Roe v. Wade was based on the constitution and that decision was made by people way more competent than you or I.

                You want to be a moral upstanding person? Go help out some teen mothers, offer to adopt their babies, help fun planned parenthood so people have access to safe contraception and testing. But no, you'll just be self righteous and try to bring the boots down on all the "sinners".

                So long as it only get unleashed upon people they consider subhuman they don't see the problem

                Actually, conservatives are long known to be the ones treating others as sub-human, we liberals have been the ones fighting for equality. But hey, don't let the hypocrisy hit you in the brain stem on the way out. Please, explain how "your people" have been subjugated by the liberals, what sub-human atrocities have you been forced to endure?

          • (Score: 1, TouchĂ©) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:48PM (#429100)

            I say we should urge President Trump to send swarms to CO and arrest everyone involved and seize every asset.

            I say that gun owners should defend themselves from those thugs.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:09PM (#429080)

        I'll pardon your assumption that people will tolerate violations to the Clean Indoor Air Act. I hope that any business that violates the act will be prosecuted or sued, regardless of whether the smoke is tobacco or marijuana.

  • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday November 18 2016, @11:00PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Friday November 18 2016, @11:00PM (#429167) Homepage Journal

    It might fall under retail tobacco stores or cigar bars. Note the last sentence where a bar sharing space with a tobacco shop is exempt.

            Statewide smoking ban: On July 1, 2006, the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect, banning smoking in all enclosed workplaces statewide, including bars and restaurants. Casinos, initially exempt, were added to the ban Jan. 1, 2008.[75] The Act only exempts private residences and automobiles unless used for the public transportation of children or as part of healthcare or daycare, limousines under private hire, hotel/motel rooms designated as smoking rooms, retail tobacco stores, cigar bars, designated areas in airports, outdoor areas, workplaces not open to the public where the employer employs three or fewer employees, private nonresidential buildings on a farm or ranch that has annual gross income of less than $500,000, and designated areas in nursing homes.[76] Local governments may regulate smoking more strictly than the state.[77] A judge has ruled that a bar sharing common indoor space with a tobacco shop is also exempt from the ban.[78]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0Colorado [wikipedia.org]