Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Tuesday October 21 2014, @04:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the learning-lessons dept.

Christopher Ingraham writes in the Washington Post that many countries are taking a close look at what's happening in Colorado and Washington state to learn lessons that can be applied to their own situations and so far, the news coming out of Colorado and Washington is overwhelmingly positive. Dire consequences predicted by reform opponents have failed to materialize. If anything, societal and economic indicators are moving in a positive direction post-legalization. Colorado marijuana tax revenues for fiscal year 2014-2015 are on track to surpass projections.

Lisa Sanchez, a program manager at México Unido Contra la Delincuencia, a Mexican non-profit devoted to promoting "security, legality and justice", underscored how legalization efforts in the U.S. are having powerful ripple effects across the globe: events in Colorado and Washington have "created political space for Latin American countries to have a real debate [about drug policy]". She noted that motivations for reform in Latin America are somewhat different than U.S. motivations - one main driver is a need to address the epidemic of violence on those countries that is fuelled directly by prohibitionist drug war policies. Mexico's president has given signs he's open to changes in that country's marijuana laws to help combat cartel violence. Sandeep Chawla, former deputy director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, notes that one of the main obstacles to meaningful reform is layers of entrenched drug control bureaucracies at the international and national levels - just in the U.S., think of the DEA, ONDCP and NIDA, among others - for whom a relaxation of drug control laws represents an undermining of their reason for existence: "if you create a bureaucracy to solve a particular problem, when the problem is solved that bureaucracy is out of a job".

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:51AM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:51AM (#108144) Journal

    Nah, you've read the situation wrong. Things are moving very fast by governmental standards. We are moving much faster than most countries.

    If 4 or 5 more states legalize on the next election, the entire country will legalize within 2 years. Once a majority of the states legalize the federal government is out of the business, because once a state steps in and regulates something the constitution denies that power to the federal government. Anyone wanting to keep that cushy senate or house seat will overturn federal regulations as soon as they see which way the wind is blowing.

    Remember what horrible programs have come from the federal government when congress gets ideas of their own. I'd much rather have them taking their que from the people than the other way around.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:19AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:19AM (#108149) Journal

    Nah, you've read the law wrong.

    GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222, vacated and remanded. [cornell.edu]

    Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.

    Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org]

    The government's Commerce Clause powers are so vast, they extend to intrastate production of marijuana. Congress can vote to decriminalize marijuana, and Eric Holder has backed down on enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in some states under some circumstances, but don't be fooled into believing that the states can suddenly supersede the federal government on the regulation of drugs.

    I also believe your prediction of a swift turnabout on recreational marijuana by the states and then the federal government is premature. It's a prediction that works for gay marriage, a civil rights issue that is enjoying support from the courts, and will probably lead to a successful Supreme Court challenge. Marijuana is going to be easier for politicians to oppose, even if more than 2 states legalize recreational marijuana.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:13PM

    by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:13PM (#108304) Homepage

    “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
    --Thomas Jefferson.

    I think it will take more than 4 or 5 states; rather, it will take enough of a majority that these states' representatives can ram legalization through Congress.

    Meanwhile, there have been a few cases where county Sheriffs have put a stop to questionable or overreaching Federal operations; we need more of that kind of courage.

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:45PM

      by velex (2068) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:45PM (#108364) Journal

      Well, I think it'll take 4 or 5 states before it catches on. That might be what GP was talking about.

      Then the magic number is 38, because Congress doesn't want to be shown up in the event there's an Article V convention [wikipedia.org]. One of those would also threaten to drag the rest of the states into legalization kicking and screaming depending on how they worded an amendment.

      But who knows. There is a lot of backwards and superstitious thinking about marijuana, and it has never been legal in the lifetimes of the vast majority alive today. Unlike alcohol prohibition, marijuana isn't something that many people have cultural and practical experience with. Then again I'm never sure when somebody I consider an intelligent critical thinker repeats some batshit “fact” about marijuana like they're saying the sky is blue whether they're just saying it because they don't want others to think they're a “pothead.”

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:44PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:44PM (#108395) Journal

        Well, I think it'll take 4 or 5 states before it catches on. That might be what GP was talking about.
        Then the magic number is 38, because Congress doesn't want to be shown up in the event there's an Article V convention [wikipedia.org].

        Exactly, when 4 or 5 states vote to legalize and tax recreational use, the rest will follow, because everyone will see that nothing bad happened, reefer madness did not set in, and traffic accidents actually went down.

        And when I refer to the other states following, I don't refer to the "State Government" I refer to the people. In both Washington and Colorado, state government was dragged kicking and screaming to recreational use by voter initiates.

        As for Congress not wanting to be shown up, I will remind you that Congress is not immutable, and voters will kick their asses out just as they did their state legislatures. The day when voters don't dare vote out "Good Ol Boys" because of the influential committees they sit on is slowly fading.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:16PM

          by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:16PM (#108406) Homepage

          Or more likely, they eye the tax revenue that Colorado has been making, money from heaven with no effort on their part and at worst minimal downside, and far more tax collected than they ever expected -- I think THAT will convince cash-strapped states, far more than any arguments over whether pot is safe or harmful or whatever.

          I do wonder how much of the anti- propaganda is funded by foreign wholesalers who are presently making a killing exporting their weed to the U.S., whose profits would drop precipitously if the U.S. grew all its own weed (as it easily could).

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:26PM

            by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:26PM (#108414) Journal

            I think the propaganda I've seen is coming from law enforcement at all levels.
            I've seen a local officer with a straight face declare it a gateway drug. Not in 1985, just last month.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:01PM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:01PM (#108439) Journal

              Yeah I think we've all seen a local police union or police chief come out against marijuana decriminalization and repeat the "gateway drug" meme recently, with a few exceptions [wikipedia.org].

              Here's a fun story [forbes.com] I just found.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:07PM

              by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:07PM (#108441) Homepage

              Likely so, but they don't have influence at the legislative level like a hired lobbyist does... I'm thinkin' the big wholesalers hire lobbyists.

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:38PM

                by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:38PM (#108693) Journal
                • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:49PM

                  by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:49PM (#108699) Homepage

                  Sure they do, but they certainly can't have the budget of the underground-drug industry.

                  And if anything, law enforcement lobbies for more and harsher laws, lest they be found surplus to society and downsized. So if anything, they're a bonus for anyone lobbying to protect their currently-illegal sales.

                  --
                  And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:54PM (#108369)

      cases where county Sheriffs have put a stop to questionable or overreaching Federal operations

      The Feds have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, so, no.
      What the local cops -can- do is not supply additional manpower for things they consider nonsense.
      The Feds get stretched too thin and their efforts look like a ridiculous patchwork.
      This was how alcohol prohibition enforcement fell apart.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:59PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:59PM (#108702) Journal

    Once a majority of the states legalize the federal government is out of the business, because once a state steps in and regulates something the constitution denies that power to the federal government.

    That's not how it works. Federal law always trumps state law, not the other way around. Tenth amendemnt says the states have all powers *not already designated to the feds*, but the courts have ruled that drug enforcement is the power of the feds through the commerce clause. The states can pass whatever laws they want, it's still technically illegal. Growers complying with state laws are still being arrested by federal agents. If they wanted to they could arrest the state officials doing things like collecting these taxes, possibly even those who passed the law, but that would almost certainly end in disaster. So instead they pick off a few small sellers hoping to keep people scared. And it seems they're starting to give up, because there's no way to win in the states that have legalized.

    The root of their problem is that there really aren't that many federal agents. The DEA currently has about 5000 field agents. That's 100 per state. 1.5 million people are arrested annually for drug charges. Assuming they're working normal hours, that gives ~1.2 arrests per agent per day -- just to enforce the status quo! I bet it takes more than one day just to do the paperwork for one arrest, let alone the investigation and prosecution and everything else. They simply can't afford to enforce these laws without cooperation from the states, and now that the states can start to see that this money is being wasted, they're going to stop cooperating.

    Might actually be beneficial if it takes a while for the federal law to reverse. Because if the states legalize, the federal law becomes unenforceable anyway. BUT...it'll keep the corporate interests out. The DEA can't raid every single dispensary selling a few ounces a week. But if Philip Morris starts cultivating this stuff in fields measured in square miles? THAT will still get raided as long as those federal laws stand. Easy target, easy morale boost for soldiers who know they've already lost. Keep the federal ban until all states have legalized and a solid supply chain has been established. Give small business a solid head start.