Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-say-"OR" dept.

Oregon ended marijuana prohibition at midnight Wednesday, joining Colorado, Washington state, Alaska and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational use of the drug.

The new law means Oregon likely will reap benefits that appear to have followed legalization elsewhere: Reduced crime, from a legal industry supplanting a black market; higher tax revenue, once weed is legal to sell; and police forces and courts unburdened by droves of misdemeanor pot offenders.

Oregon voters in November approved Measure 91 with 56 percent of the vote. As of now, adults 21 and older can legally possess up to eight ounces of marijuana inside their home and up to one ounce outside. Adults can grow up to four plants per household, out of public view.

Sign of the times.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:59PM

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:59PM (#204356) Journal

    Social conservative enforcement still has to answer to State's Rights advocates, which at this time is a much stronger and growing group than the former. That is why recreational marijuana is being implemented state by state, and each state requires in-state production.

    There is a court battle waiting in the wings, when the feds do try to step into a recreational state, because of the language in the Tenth Amendment [constitutioncenter.org]. Once a state undertakes regulation, the feds must step back. (Or so the reasoning goes.)

    The Federal government is in no particular hurry to test (and probably lose) this in court.

    Another interesting issue is brought into play here, as Washington and Oregon share a border, and may drop any objection to imports from other recreational states. Are the DEA going to now set up check points on the I5 corridor?

    Horse has fled the barn if you ask me. There are several states where recreational marijuana is fighting for a ballot slot, and as the citizens in those states look at the utter lack of total destruction and mayhem caused in Washington and Colorado, it will almost surely pass.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:04PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:04PM (#204358) Journal

    "States rights advocates" universally seem to shut up completely the moment those regimes come in. Because the vast majority of those people are seeking to advocate for the states' rights to unreasonably apply socially or economically conservative positions. The details of the different "debates" being settled that way are sufficiently distinct, that I'm not going to try extend that umbrella further, but there's a lot history of "states rights" being a cover for anti-human rights, once those rights start to become central to the national debate, that I can't honestly buy into your position.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:16PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:16PM (#204361) Journal

      Its been rather apparent over the last many months you don't buy into any opinion but your own. So no great loss here.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:31PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:31PM (#204367) Journal

        you don't buy into any opinion but your own

        I am very suspicious of anyone who would buy opinions, and even more suspicious of anyone who is only interesting in investing in opinions rather than owning them free and clear. Borrowed or stolen opinions are, in fact, not opinions at all, but lies, facades, pretenses, or propaganda. So what would you have a poor Soylentil do, fro? Not have opinions? Or purchase them second hand?

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:54PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 02 2015, @07:54PM (#204379) Journal

          I suggest most are given (foisted?) free (as in beer) to any who will listen, and the price to be paid comes later, mostly by at least tacitly allowing that some part of your prior operating assumptions may have flaws, and the learning curve imposed to incorporate new ideas into the old.
               

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 03 2015, @12:18AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday July 03 2015, @12:18AM (#204479) Journal

            and the learning curve imposed to incorporate new ideas into the old.

            Ah! We agree! I have always maintained there is no such thing as intellectual property, because ideas cannot be transferred, as anyone who has tried teaching knows. It is the intellectual labor that makes the idea your own, so I think we can say that opinions are based on a labor theory of value (hey, Marx was right!), rather than a market or exchange value. So, what was the original point?

      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:11PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:11PM (#204383) Journal

        "You're disagreeing with me, thus a singleminded zealot." That's a shallow counterargument that combines an easy ad hominem with a bare assertion.

        I was disagreeing with you because my opinion differs from yours and discussions are a way to seek, but not always get, clarity about why those differences exist. Occasionally that can be really enlightening, and while, no, you've not convinced me of anything, I can certainly recall a few discussions that led to me reconsidering a point.

    • (Score: 1) by deadstick on Friday July 03 2015, @12:51AM

      by deadstick (5110) on Friday July 03 2015, @12:51AM (#204485)

      there's a lot history of "states rights" being a cover for anti-human rights

      Beginning with the first time out of the gate for states' rights: the right to keep slaves.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @01:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03 2015, @01:15AM (#204492)

        And the most recent time: the right to treat non-heterosexuals as sub-human.