Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-the-law dept.

Coinciding with the midterm elections yesterday were state ballots proposing the legalization of cannabis. All three territories where full legalization was tabled approved the measure, joining Washington state and Colorado in giving cannabis the nod. The narrowest vote was that of Alaska at a roughly 52 to 48 percent margin. Washington D.C. meanwhile saw the vote strongly tipped in favor at about 69% to 31% opposed. Buoyed by the news, advocates of legal cannabis are already contemplating the next round of state ballots in 2016.

The referendums come amid shifts in American opinions on marijuana in recent years that have energized efforts to legalize cannabis, a drug that remains illegal under federal law even as Colorado and Washington state have been given the go-ahead to experiment with legalization.

On the other side of the spectrum, a medical marijuana initiative in Florida was defeated with 58% in favor, 42% opposed; the initiative needed 60% to pass.

This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:40PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:40PM (#113378) Journal

    I'm shocked it passed in Alaska in a midterm election.

    Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2, the group opposing the measure, had concerns over the language of the initiative -- specifically that it left too much up to the regulatory process. With so many questions unanswered in the initiative’s language, they voiced concerns over possible increases in marijuana use. They argued that more use would lead to more problems related to increased teen access, public health risks, potent marijuana concentrates and additional cost and resource burdens on public safety departments.

    We can't show it's harmful, but we can voice concerns!

    “Alaska is fiercely independent, and I think regardless of how tonight turns out Alaskans understand that we were part of a national strategy” surrounding pot legalization, said No campaign spokeswoman Kristina Woolston.

    “I think at the end of the day we were all happy with the group of Alaskans that came together,” she said.

    Pat yourselves on the back for voting against decriminalizing a plant, and losing.

    Since younger voters are too blazed off of the devil's lettuce to vote in midterms, expect a lot more states to legalize in 2016.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:44PM (#113395)

      I'm shocked it passed in Alaska

      Are you kidding? You need weed if you want to get through those long, isolated winters!

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by melikamp on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:53PM

        by melikamp (1886) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:53PM (#113396) Journal

        Whoa, I don't need drugs to enjoy this! Just to enhance it.

        ~ Otto

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @12:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @12:20AM (#113399)

      Alaska decriminalized pot in 1975 and legalized medical pot in 1998. [vox.com] But the legislators were assholes, ignored public opinion and kept laws "around" pot like refusing to implement medical dispensary licenses. So it isn't that big of a surprise that the vote went this way, the politicians have been out of step with the voters for decades on this.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:19PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:19PM (#113500) Homepage Journal

      Why do you think it's younger voters that vote to legalize pot? I'm 62 and half the people my age that I know smoke it, and do so illegally (one guy I know will be doing it legally next year, they legalized medical pot here and he has health issues).

      It's my parents' generation that's mostly against it, and there are fewer of them left every day.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday November 06 2014, @06:00PM

        by cykros (989) on Thursday November 06 2014, @06:00PM (#113591)

        This is definitely worth remembering. Even for my fairly straight laced parents in their 60s (Dad never so much as smoked tobacco, let alone marijuana), the idea of continuing the criminalization of this stuff at the expense of the taxpayers is completely ludicrous (and while being a Bush voter, he's pretty quick to point out that most of the drug laws were crafted along racial lines in the first place). The only ones in the working age range with the capacity to think that are for continued criminalization seem to be those whose jobs revolve around suckling at the government teet in carrying out the suppression the laws bring.

        At some point, I think people realized that you don't have to advocate smoking the stuff all day every day to still realize that the existing policy has/had no merit to it and is/was doing harm to the nation and society as a whole. Government just moves slower than public opinion, but it'll get there soon enough on this matter.

        • (Score: 1) by SacredSalt on Thursday November 06 2014, @06:33PM

          by SacredSalt (2772) on Thursday November 06 2014, @06:33PM (#113597)

          Even a lot of those are for legalizing marijuana. My beloved is a drug counselor and LPC. She still councils plenty of people about alcohol; it being legal for adults has not effected her trade very much - just who refers the clients. Marijuana being legal for adults would have little impact on her as most of her marijuana using clients are referrals from high schools, and as a result of law enforcement activities from roadside stops for driving while impaired.

          Pretty much the only things being put out of work by this would be an entire generation of police dogs trained to sit when they smell marijuana and other drugs. It would be very hard to correct their detection of marijuana, and they would likely end up at shelters.

          So keep marijuana illegal to keep fluffy employed or fluffy will end up in a kill shelter! Otherwise, rock on legalization!

      • (Score: 1) by takyon on Thursday November 06 2014, @07:20PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday November 06 2014, @07:20PM (#113618) Journal

        These are the exit polls from CNN. There are also alternate results with the age groups 18-24, 25-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-64, 65+.

        Alaska Measure 2: Legalize marijuana [cnn.com] passed 52-48.

        18-29: 19%
        59% Yes, 41% No

        30-44: 27%
        59% Yes, 41% No

        45-64: 41%
        49% Yes, 51% No

        65 and older: 13%
        40% Yes, 60% No

        Florida Amendment 2: Allow medical marijuana [cnn.com] failed 58-42.

        18-29: 14%
        79% Yes, 21% No

        30-44: 19%
        65% Yes, 35% No

        45-64: 42%
        60% Yes, 40% No

        65 and older: 25%
        38% Yes, 62% No

        (Notice the only age group that didn't vote the 60% Yes required to pass. The other brackets show 63% support among ages 40-49 and 58% for 50-64)

        Oregon Measure 91: Legalize marijuana [cnn.com] passed 56-44.

        18-24: 6%
        N/A

        25-29: 5%
        N/A

        30-39: 16%
        N/A

        40-49: 16%
        48% Yes, 52% No

        50-64: 31%
        56% Yes, 44% No

        65 or older: 25%
        42% Yes, 58% No

        While a respectable ~40% of your approximate age bracket support various marijuana initiatives, it's clear that young people support it by far more, and support is correlated with age. It's well known that young people don't vote as often in midterms and off-season elections, but show up in force to Presidential elections, particularly for "exciting" politicians. President Obama excited young people in 2008, Hillary Clinton and/or Rand Paul can do it in 2016.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 07 2014, @06:30PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 07 2014, @06:30PM (#113908) Homepage Journal

          "65 and over" covers my octogenarian parents, and it's a scant three years before I'm part of that age group. Note that it's mostly those over 70 who oppose legalization.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by prospectacle on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:46PM

    by prospectacle (3422) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:46PM (#113381) Journal

    This may be a gross generalisation but it seems like major political change in america happens at the state level more often and more easily than at the federal level.

    Once enough states have legalised it (say, more than a third), I expect many federal politicians will start acting like they're all for legalisation too, but they'll just be following the trend. By the time it's two thirds of the states, it will be legalised at the federal level.

    Given historical lows in both approval ratings actual productivity in congress, would americans be better off ignoring the federal government as much as possible and just focusing on state initiatives.

    --
    If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:26PM

      by tathra (3367) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:26PM (#113387)

      it seems like major political change in america happens at the state level more often and more easily than at the federal level.

      thats how its supposed to work. the individual states are supposed to be sorta like independent countries partnering together under a single banner, like the European Union. the federal government should've never been able to make drugs illegal in the first place, partly because thats supposed to be decided by the states themselves and partly because its unconstitutional (part of the reason its unconstitutional is because its supposed to be decided by the states, but it also violates at least the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteen amendments).

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday November 06 2014, @02:12AM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday November 06 2014, @02:12AM (#113425) Journal

        If we apply the legal principles behind the prohibition of alcohol to the banning of cannabis, the States would have the authority to allow or deny the plants. The 10th Amendment specifically states:

        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.

        Unfortunately our US Supreme Court, where the Justices are only approved by Federally-elected legislators, came up with some truly convoluted thinking that by growing your own cannabis, you affect the Interstate market for the drug [wikipedia.org] and thus are under Federal jurisdiction. This is in line with a 1930s opinion that prevented farmers from using their own excess grain to feed their animals.

        There is also a push to nullify some Federal anti-gun laws at the State level. [tenthamendmentcenter.com] These are newer initiatives, so I don't believe there has been a significant court case about them. It will be an impressive, courageous move if these States start arresting Federal agents who violate the State laws. It may also be political suicide.

        Justice Sandra Day O'Connor quoted Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

        Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."

        Imagine if this applied to abortion? Let New York be New York and let Kansas be Kansas. A big part of the reason abortion is such an issue today is that the Justices forced it on a divided populace while ignoring the 10th Amendment entirely.

        If American history is any indication, the march of growth of power at the highest level (Federal) inevitably will occur in the EU. The blowback will occur as well, as there is some fringe talk in the UK about going back to its own human rights and immigration laws. So long as the UK has its own armed forces, this is possible. In America, it may well lead to civil war.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:29PM (#113390)

      Why was that comment modded up? Anyone who knows anything at all about American history will know that that has always been the case. It has been a well-understood and elementary principle of American politics for many decades now. It isn't insightful; it's obvious!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by prospectacle on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:54PM

        by prospectacle (3422) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:54PM (#113398) Journal

        Forgive me I'm but a humble outsider and casual observer. It's just odd that news reports about america, news and opinion pieces from america, and a lot of internet discussions of american politics all focus mainly on federal politics and politicians, as if it's what really matters. If it's states that are the engines of change then trends among the states would be a more profitable focus for virtually everyone involved.

        I guess if the answer is just that mass media tends to focuses on things which are simple, easy to sensationalise, and not really that important, then that's nothing new.

        --
        If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:25PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:25PM (#113504) Homepage Journal

          The US isn't like the EU. Here, federal law trumps state law, so legalizing a federal crime at the state level does little. If we get the wrong President in the White House, the DEA will come down on Colorado and the rest like a ton of bricks. It needs to be legalized at the federal level.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by cykros on Friday November 07 2014, @01:12AM

            by cykros (989) on Friday November 07 2014, @01:12AM (#113707)

            They'd be crazy to try, really. Between being obstructed by every state level office/law enforcement agency around and being horribly outnumbered by civilians, the DEA would just be walking into a big old ball of bad press (and likely, server to make cannabis MORE abundant and available as a result of the backlash...but then, that's been the way the drug war has worked since day 1).

            That all said, yes, the Supreme Court is where things get decided when State and Federal law don't quite line up, as it defers to the Constitution to determine whether or not the Federal legislature has been given the authority by the states as a union to enact whatever law it is that disagrees with a particular state law. It's NOT the case at all that Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law, and that is exactly what the Constitution lays out.

            As you can see though, our history and civics (they still have these somewhere, right?) classes here are more hung up with American folklore, slogans, and memorizing presidents than they are on actually teaching anyone how things work, and this has been much to the boon of governments at all levels having a lot less eloquent dissent to have to address in the first place.

            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 07 2014, @06:26PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 07 2014, @06:26PM (#113906) Homepage Journal

              It's NOT the case at all that Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law

              It's certainly true that congress passes unconstitutional laws, but they've ruled that this is covered by the "commerce clause".

              As you can see though, our history and civics (they still have these somewhere, right?) classes here are more hung up with American folklore, slogans, and memorizing presidents than they are on actually teaching anyone how things work

              I don't know, it's been decades since I was im public school, but that's pretty much they way they "taught" everything back then.

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
              • (Score: 2) by cykros on Tuesday November 11 2014, @02:40AM

                by cykros (989) on Tuesday November 11 2014, @02:40AM (#114707)

                Yea...unfortunately, one of the worst ways to learn how the system works is by trusting public school teachers, and moreso, the textbooks. At some point or other, a lot of people realized there was a lot of power to be seized by enticing people with the whole "let the professional politicians worry about governance," when in fact our whole system was devised to contain the extent of that sort of centralized power to begin with.

                All that said, if a Federal law is deemed constitutional, then yes, it is generally correct that it will always trump state law, with the Supreme Court holding that decision making power (and regardless of anything else, a Supreme Court ruling absolutely does trump State Law).

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 07 2014, @02:03PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Friday November 07 2014, @02:03PM (#113797) Journal

            If we get the wrong President in the White House, the DEA will come down on Colorado and the rest like a ton of bricks.

            Not unless Congress also approves a *MASSIVE* increase to the DEA's budget.

            They have 3000 field agents. For the entire country. Half the nation (23 states plus DC) now has some form of legal marijuana (either medical or recreational). It'd really suck if you were one of the people they caught, but they wouldn't have any hope at this point of catching and prosecuting even a small fraction of offenders. And the courts would be backed up for *decades* too. And federal prisons are already overcrowded.

            There's also still a risk that the courts would rule against them -- the legality of the war on drugs has been questionable from the start, and with popular opinion now turning against it, the courts might too. I don't think it's ever been seriously challenged in court by the states. Remember all the NSA lawsuits that were thrown out because the people couldn't prove *their* rights were violated, so the courts said they didn't have standing to sue? Well, the states are the ones whose rights are violated by the war on drugs. So a state challenging it is significantly different from an individual citizen challenging it.

            The ONLY way it can remain illegal is with the cooperation of state-level law enforcement. The feds lost any hope of winning this battle several years ago.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @10:46PM (#113382)

    Is this submission relevant for SN?

    It's like the Ferguson or sexism submissions, only a lot less interesting. It's purely mainstream CNN-style news that we can get from, well, CNN or any other mainstream outlet.

    Even submissions about systemd are preferable to this one.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by morgauxo on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:17PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:17PM (#113384)

      That's just because you are a lover of Systemd.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:25PM (#113386)

        I don't really care about systemd. But at least there's a real technical aspect to that discussion. This discussion is just boring political talk, no better than what we find at so many other sites.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:22PM (#113385)

      The parent comment should be modded up. There are much better stories in the queue right now than this one.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @11:31PM (#113391)

      I agree. I don't come here for news like this.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @12:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @12:31AM (#113401)

        Then do us all a favor and stop coming here. If you won't submit stories yourself or add anything constructive, you're part of the problem.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @03:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @03:11AM (#113430)

        I thought we all came here to escape Beta?

        • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Thursday November 06 2014, @05:39AM

          by M. Baranczak (1673) on Thursday November 06 2014, @05:39AM (#113442)

          I thought we all came here to escape Beta?

          And to escape Ethanol Fueled. We're halfway there!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @12:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @12:47AM (#113406)

      SoylentNews is what?

      If you come here for news then you will be disappointed in many ways. What really makes this site is its discussion. Even topics that are meaningless can still have thought-provoking commentary that changes your perspective.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @11:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06 2014, @11:32PM (#113690)

        commentary that changes your perspective

        Yeah, I have encountered such compelling arguments (even on topics where I thought my position was solid).

        More often, I find new talking points that support my position on subjects on which I am interested|passionate.

        -- gewg_

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:37AM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday November 06 2014, @01:37AM (#113418) Journal

      We don't come here for the summaries but rather the comments.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SlimmPickens on Thursday November 06 2014, @03:21AM

      by SlimmPickens (1056) on Thursday November 06 2014, @03:21AM (#113431)

      Is this submission relevant for SN?

      You must have missed this story [soylentnews.org]

      FBI Director says hackers who want to apply for a job at the FBI should ignore the policy posted on the FBI web site that precludes anyone who has smoked weed in the last three years.

      FBI chief says anti-marijuana policy hinders the hiring of cyber experts. FBI cyber recruits "want to smoke weed on the way to the interview," Comey says.

      • (Score: 2) by cykros on Friday November 07 2014, @01:24AM

        by cykros (989) on Friday November 07 2014, @01:24AM (#113710)

        I'd imagine they want to smoke a LOT on the way to the interview. Being in a position as a consumer of marijuana where your best option on the table is working for the FBI must be a horribly depressing situation to find oneself. As a hacker AND a pothead, all the worse.

        The FBI hasn't exactly done much to win the hearts and minds of the population, and instead seem to just rely on being government work and thus stable with good benefits to lure people in. Frankly, that they get anyone worth a damn in the field of cybersecurity is moderately surprising, though I guess cybercriminals of the 2010s are a lot less lovable than they were in the 90s ("information wants to be free" is a lot less abrasive than "all your private data are belong to shadowy organized cartels in China", even if they ultimately are two sides of the same coin). Considering cases like S4BU the Snitch, however, it'd seem they have ways of "attracting" recruits.

        • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday November 07 2014, @03:26AM

          by SlimmPickens (1056) on Friday November 07 2014, @03:26AM (#113737)

          I'd say it's about resources. Not just lesser known vulns but access to mathematicians, supercomputers, clandestine networks and who knows what else. I can see how it could be fun on a technical level, but I very much agree with you on an ethical level.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 07 2014, @02:05PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Friday November 07 2014, @02:05PM (#113798) Journal

      It's relevant because it was submitted and because people are interested.

      You may need to review the SoylentNews FAQ:
      http://soylentnews.org/faq.pl [soylentnews.org]

      Do you only want tech news?

      We aim for around 70% technology and science stories with the remainder being a mix of content with general interest to our community.