14 ms·
Colorado measure legalizing marijuana passes
- doctoboggan 14y agoThis is a pretty big deal. It will be interesting to see how the federal government handles this.
- SenorWilson 14y agoThe same way they do now. They'll do a bust every couple of months to keep their directors happy.
- suby 14y agoAt the time of posting, it also looks like Washington is going to pass their marijuana ballot too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization-results_n_2074168.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalizat...
- llambda 14y agoInterestingly enough, Washington State's similar initiative, Initiative 502, passed as well tonight. It would seem momentum is growing around legalization. How the federal government via the DEA and DOJ ultimately handle these two victories for legalization proponents may be telling in regard to how close a national concensus is.
- larrykubin 14y agounfortunately it just failed in Oregon: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_measure_80_legalization.html#incart_river_default http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_m...
- MartinCron 14y agoAs a Washington state resident, the thought of Oregonian pot tourists sends a shiver down my spine. :)
- jamesmcn 14y agoVancouver, WA is going to be an interesting place.
- snprbob86 14y agoFor those wondering, Vancouver borders Portland: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vancouver,+WA&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x5495af63c85914f9:0x8456d5112c91e3f3,Vancouver,+WA&gl=us&ei=7_qZUPOZMKKNigLpwoGICA&ved=0CKUBELYD https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vancouver,+WA&ie=UTF-8...
- Alex3917 14y agoThis was inevitable. The Oregon law was based on the tomato model, which is only 1 / 5th as popular as the tax and regulate like alcohol model: http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want-marijuana-to-be-legalized/ http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want-ma... If the law gets rewritten and makes it onto the ballot again in four years then it will pass easily.
- sliverstorm 14y agoPerfect evidence that you need to work step-by-step with this sort of social change, rather than simply declaring, "I want it all, and I want it now".
- Osmium 14y agoAs an outsider, I'm not sure I understand what this means. Can someone explain how this will work in practice? in the sense that this doesn't over-rule federal laws, and presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?
- stormbeta 14y agoAs far as I can tell, no one's sure yet.
- Alex3917 14y ago"Can someone explain how this will work in practice?" Read the law. "presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?" The feds have said that they aren't going to target individuals who follow state law. As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently left up to each local DA. There are some rough guidelines the feds have put out saying that if you follow certain rules (as a grower or dispensary owner) then you won't be arrested, but it's up to each DA as to whether or not to honor those guidelines. The federal government has already accepted that marijuana is going to become legal, but they're trying to make it happen in an orderly way. Insiders generally predict federal legalization (or at least rescheduling) in 3-5 years. That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political, economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned.
- tubbzor 14y ago> That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political, economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned. sources?
- Alex3917 14y agoSo Nate Silver says that the demographics will be most favorable to marijuana legalization in 2022 - 2024. Because of this, 2024 is more likely than 2022 because it's a presidential cycle, and presidential cycles are always more liberal than midterms. By this time also: - There will be a ton more academic research about marijuana - There will be several FDA approved medicines made from marijuana extracts and specific cannabinoids on the market. - The price of LEDs will have fallen by 50% as compared with today, meaning that it will be both cheaper to grow marijuana indoors and much harder to detect since thermal imaging cameras will no longer be able to detect rows. - Solar photovoltaic will also be much less expensive, and this becomes viable for keeping small indoor grows entirely off the grid when combined with LEDs. - Medical marijuana will be legal in New York state, and probably in 25+ states total. - Being able to synthetically fabricating new drugs using biotech platforms and 3D printing will be either here already or just over the horizon. - The baby boomers will be in their 70s and 80s, which is when they will be at their most powerful and active politically, both as voters and also in the house and senate.
- seanalltogether 14y agoAre there any other instances of this kind of issue to compare this against and see how it's going to play out. I'm trying to think of other instances where something was illegal at the federal level, and states have made that legal?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 14y agoSlavery? :-P
- bitteralmond 14y agoLiquor, about 80 years ago.
- saber_taylor 14y agoI did a debate on this topic 17 years ago. There are historical parallels though I don't recall the location of smaller regions legalizing marijuana within a larger nation. It's not all sunshine and roses when that happens: trafficking went up and crime stayed about the same. (from memory.)
- sakri 14y agoworked well for portugal : http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decrimin...
- icebraining 14y agoWe haven't made it legal, just decriminalized consumption.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- moistgorilla 14y agoAs someone that doesn't smoke weed and never wants to. I'm happy that this got passed. I want Cartels to go out of business.
- MartinCron 14y agoYou, me, almost every economist, and a huge group of law enforcement professionals.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Osiris 14y agoI'm the same way. I don't smoke but I think the lives saves from legalization is worth it. Disclosure: I live in Colorado and voted for the amendment.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ComputerGuru 14y agoThat's a real strawman argument. There are real, tangible, and very good reasons for wanting drug cartels to go out of business, starting with the fact that they play fast and loose with the lives of humans, traffic drugs through sex slaves across borders, dump their stuff on kids, get children involved with gangs when they're young, cheat their own customers by cutting their drugs w/ what boils down to poison to save a penny, promote drug-related gang violence resulting in mass shootings and the death of innocent bystanders, make money without paying taxes, and so on and so forth. Whereas me opening "Mike's Magic Marijuana Stand" next to the corner deli means I get my shipments via UPS, I pay my taxes, I sell directly to the clients that want it, I don't exploit children and women, I don't involve myself in bribery, I make sure my customers are over 21, I don't smuggle arms to defend my turf, and overall I'm not a blight on the face of the planet. QED?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- 46Bit 14y agoProvided this actually happens (ie: it doesn't get sabotaged by the DEA), I expect Colorado's tourist numbers and college applications will compete for the largest increase next year. Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.
- mahmud 14y agoNot a smoker either, but discussed living in CO or WA is we go back to the U.S. I just want to live among open minded people.
- pinchyfingers 14y agoAlcohol prohibition in the United States underwent a similar process. New York legalized alcohol, while it was still prohibited by federal law. Eventually, enough states had stopped arresting and prosecuting people for alcohol that it was not feasible to continue federal prohibition. Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
- detst 14y ago> When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end. Maybe true, but unfortunately there have been instances relating to medicinal usage where local enforcement followed federal instead of their state law.
- Saberliner682 14y agoI don't know what we would do if we could not grow and use cannabis as medicine. We live in california. My wife has been able to get off heavy pain killers only because of medical cannabis. We don't sell it or give it away. What we grow we use. Leave us alone big federal government. Regulate and control but don't put people in jail for a useful plant.
- bdcravens 14y agoWhat was the federal-state-local funding model like then? I know most municipalities continue to depend on federal funding, and I can see the US government using this (I recall a similar thing a few years ago around legal drinking ages)
- aggie 14y agoThe feds would need to justify a denial in funding based on some public health grounds ("to promote the general welfare" [1]). If this was brought to the courts, it could actually be a good opportunity to critically examine effects of legalization in a relatively rational, authoritative venue. The DEA's absurd Schedule I classification would need to be justified if it were to be imposed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
- tubbzor 14y agoLiving in Colorado, I voted yes on Amendment 64. This was mostly because I think the hemp and 'recreation' industries will pull in a lot of tax revenue (of which, the first $40 million will be put directly into a public schools fund for the state), as well as potential job growth. I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be considered 'dispensaries'? It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp based industry get started up at all.
- akiselev 14y agoCities can do whatever they want. If you look at the distribution of dispensaries in the Bay Area, they are in SF, Oakland, San Jose, and a few other cities but none in the stretch between South SF and SJ
- lukifer 14y agoI recall that the measure specifically allows for municipalities to outlaw sale and production within their jurisdiction, and I imagine many will do so. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
- Kadin 14y agoThe city-level restrictions seem fair. Without some sort of "escape valve" to let places that are predominately opposed opt out, I suspect you'd get a lot of backlash and you might see a reversal. Better to let some cities lead and others sit the first round out ... although they'll probably be losing some valuable first-mover tourist dollar advantages in doing so.
- njharman 14y agoNot at the same "level", but. Many things should not have "local" opt outs. Such as opting out of providing abortions, health care, desgregation. Access to drugs is one of these things. One job of government is to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. (and no I don't believe in "negative" rights such as we have the right not to have mary jane sold in our town.) OTOH, I can accept this as a necessary and temporary compromise to get the decriminalization ball rolling.
- detst 14y agoI'm actually optimistic about civil liberties in this country. Didn't see that coming. Two states legalized marijuana and possibly four more states have approved gay marriage (btw, I rarely smoke and I'm not gay). Let's keep this going.
- Nursie 14y agoGotta wonder, now that Obama is a second term president and doesn't have to think about re-election, whether we could see some of this stuff start to happen at the federal level...
- Karunamon 14y agoI'd hope so, but the other side is going to be just as obstructionist and useless as ever.
- cobrausn 14y agoNevermind that Obama has never expressed any interest in marijuana legalization and has even gone against his own promises in regards to prosecution. But feel free to keep projecting 'progressive values' onto him that aren't there.
- Karunamon 14y ago>Nevermind that Obama has never expressed any interest in marijuana legalization And up until very recently he never expressed any interest in marriage equality either. Your point?
- cobrausn 14y agoThere's a difference between 'not expressing interest' and 'actively pursuing the opposing agenda' that I hope is apparent. 2012 Democratic Platform: "We must help state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement work together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which are blights on our communities. We have increased funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program over the last four years, and we will continue to expand the use of drug courts. We support the rights of victims to be respected, heard, and compensated." RTFM.
- scythe 14y agoThe most important part of this to me is that it generates a huge amount of precedent for the Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Guatemala that are considering legalization. The United States has used its global influence to push drug prohibition in other countries -- see for instance http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=218#2 http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannab... -- and with these victories -- even if they prove to be merely nominal -- the people of Latin America can see that prohibition is crumbling. There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the real victory here.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoIt certainly seems like this is the tipping point. Overall national support for decriminalization is at just over 50%. Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization. I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.
- dsrguru 14y ago> All of the west coast is pro legalization. Then how did Measure 80 fail in Oregon? :) I do agree that the general trend toward more states approving medical marijuana suggests that fewer and fewer people are still viewing the drug as evil. If the federal government doesn't interfere with Colorado and Washington, I'm hopeful that marijuana grown in those states will start to replace Mexican marijuana on the black market and weaken the cartels. It's really unconscionable that American politicians are willing to perpetuate the constant state of fear that so many Mexicans are living in now by maintaining marijuana prohibition. What could possibly be worth 12,358 lives in 2011 alone? [1] The knowledge that we're making it harder for our children to obtain a safer alternative to alcohol? [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Drug-War_Related_Murders_in_Mexico_2006-2011.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Drug-War_...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- armenarmen 14y ago...and im trying to profiteer http://www.facebook.com/HerbTours http://www.facebook.com/HerbTours
- olivier1664 14y agoYep, there is some business opportunities here.
- trotsky 14y agoIn unrelated news, doctors announced unprecedented drops in the number of 20-40 year olds suffering from migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and insomnia.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- gwillen 14y agoI think the joke is that people are claiming to have depression etc. in order to get "medicinal" marijuana.
- moistgorilla 14y agolol, that went completely over my head.
- chimeracoder 14y agoI interpreted it the other way, as all of those (except for depression) are symptomatic concerns, and marijuana is excellent at treating those symptoms!
- cyscott 14y agohttp://www.leafly.com/explore#/Depression http://www.leafly.com/explore#/Depression
- quest88 14y agoHoly shit. Really?
- moistgorilla 14y agoI just never heard that it helped with that, that's all. I'm not trying to imply that he's wrong I just want to read whatever paper claims so for myself.
- DanBC 14y agoProhibition is clearly stupid and has caused very great harm. Other people have mentioned the death and destruction in Mexico as one example. I am strongly pro legalisation. But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self-medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the ability to do better science.) Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.
- endlessvoid94 14y agoProhibition is the reason we don't know many of those things.
- adimitrov 14y agoNicotine & Alcohol both cause mental and physiological illnesses — a lot of them actually. Marijuana can be linked to certain types of psychosis, depending on which study you read. It's a risk. Personally, I favour the Norwegian model: tax it highly, put the tax gains into the public health sector. Everybody wins.
- patrickgzill 14y agoThe purpose of prohibition was to destroy local, independant breweries and distillers, so that large conglomerates would be able to dominate the very lucrative alcohol industry once it was re-legalized.
- andyakb 14y agoThis has absolutely no basis in fact.
- patrickgzill 14y agoLook at who the owners of breweries and distilleries were pre-Prohibition, and after. Before - small businesses, essentially micro-brewers, spread out across the country. After - Anheuser-Busch and a few others. QED.
- piokoch 14y agoI'am curious how health insurace companies will react. Would they charge more from people who take marijuana? Would it be legal for them to investigate if someone is cannabies smoker?
- weedwall 14y agoColorado the first state to legalize!! So many efforts to make this happen and it's an amazing milestone for the medical marijuana community. I am currently building a social network at www.WeedWall.com to help build an activism platform and community for Marijuana to help move our laws and opinions forward on the industry as a whole!! Excitement here at the office!!
- dutchbrit 14y agoGood news! Let farmers grow it and people at home. Sell it, tax it, allow people to buy it in a safe environment instead from dealers that try to get people hooked on other crap. This makes weed less of a gateway drug and more a greatway drug.
- pioul 14y agoThe amendment will allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of the drug at specially regulated retail stores. I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments, but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person? And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even corporations to get their hands on these records?
- nlh 14y agoI'm guessing -- and this is purely a guess (ie I haven't read the law) -- that the 1oz limit is likely per transaction / per visit. Just like when a supermarket says "limit 5 per customer" for an item on sale. If you REALLY want more you can go back later/tomorrow/etc. This was likely put in the language of the law to emphasize that this is for personal use and not for commercial distribution.
- HistoryInAction 14y agoCan't wait to see the impact analysis from http://www.marijuanamajority.com/ http://www.marijuanamajority.com/ Perry Rosenstein++
- Inebas 14y agoI am having a hard time understanding the reasons for support here in HN so please help me out. A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it? Suppose that it is a more powerful drug that is very hazardous to a person exist. Doesn't that speaks to the same situation? Should we legalize that as well? I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop. With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of alcohol addiction, etc...
- regularfry 14y agoA common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it? I am struggling to find any potential answer to this which doesn't boil down to "yes". I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? Why not both? The national harms done by prohibition are very, very real. I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop. Legalisation will cut off a major funding source for those "bad side effects." It might not stop them completely, but it ought to make a dent.
- Inebas 14y agoWhat I'm saying is that the same people who creates those violent crimes selling marijuana is going to create violent crimes selling other more dangerous drugs. Should we then legalize that as well so that those people will stop making those drugs and focus on another more dangerous drug?
- Nursie 14y ago1) Yes, we should carefully consider every aspect of prohibition and analyse how we can set policy to bring levels of harm down to an absolute minimum. If this includes decrim of everything, we shouldn't balk at it but follow best available evidence. This is not easy. For example, is it acceptable to decriminalise and prescribe heroin for addicts if the results are (hypothetically): - increase in the number of heroin addicts by 50% due to easier availability - decrease in 95% of deaths due to heroin and heroin-related HIV due to clean needles, known doses, no impurities etc - eliminate 95% of the acquisitive crime by these addicts as nobody steals for a fix any more I would say yes. But it's a hard sell at the political level, particularly when western society seems to regard addiction as a moral failure and a sin in need of punishment. I find it particularly perverse that when you explain to people that providing a fix and (hopefully) a slow, easy, managed detox program for these people is not only more humane but likely to save insane amounts of tax money AND cut violent crime, some folks are still against it because 'they broke the law!' 2) If the popular and less harmful drugs (weed, E/X , probably a few others like LSD) are legalised and made available then the available customer base and cash for the criminal gangs shrinks massively. Nobody expects them to go home to mommy and start an honest career but if you cut the cashflow, you cut the ability of the gangs to function, and you cut the number of people coming in because it's less attractive. Surely you can't think that cutting off a lucrative revenue stream from the cartels is a bad thing? 3) Drugs really aren't as dangerous as you've been told. Read a real book on them sometime. I recommend 'Drugs: Without the hot air' by Professor David Nutt, one of the UK's foremost scientists in this area.
- sigzero 14y agoI am sure the Feds are going to slap it down.
- nkohari 14y agoThe federal government has no jurisdiction. They technically don't have the authority to make a substance illegal at the federal level anyway -- they get away with it by levying taxes on banned substances that can't actually be paid. Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms, libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs, and he's already made it very clear that marijuana is not high (ha) on his list of concerns.
- starnixgod 14y agoThe feds don't have the authority to criminalize a substance? News to me, perhaps you should brush up on Supreme court decisions since the 1940's: Start with Wickard v. Filburn then move on to Gonzales v. Raich The expansive rulings on the Commerce Clause has opened up the ability of congress to legislate just about anything, provided they can tie it loosely to the act affecting commerce in some minuscule way.
- nkohari 14y agoIANAL, and I'm not going to pretend (like yourself) that I can interpret Supreme Court opinions by "brushing up" on them. Could you point me to an instance in which the cases you cited were used as precedence in support of federal jurisdiction over controlled substances within state lines? Or did you just want me to be impressed that you can cite Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause?
- chimeracoder 14y agoOn a separate note, the federal government prevents states from exercising their constitutional right to lower the drinking age to 18, by blackmailing them with the threat of losing highway funding. There's nothing stopping them from doing that with marijuana.
- at-fates-hands 14y agoI think they are plenty of good arguments for legalizing marijuana - however, things like this tend to make me think twice about it: "In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.” http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-drivers-20110703 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-dri...
- pyre 14y ago> law enforcement puts much of the blame on the > rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last > decade I would say that law enforcement isn't necessarily unbiased here. It comes across to me like asking the RIAA about how piracy affects them and then being concerned when they claim that they are loosing $1-billion every minute due to piracy. If you're worried about DUIs, then do you want alcohol production/possession criminialized?
- learc83 14y ago>nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year That number is meaningless unless we know what counts as "injuries". Furthermore "drugged driving" is anytime someone is in an accident and blood tests show evidence of Marijuana use, even in cases where the driver was no longer impaired. >Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009. How often were they testing for Marijuana after car accidents in 1999 compared to 2009, and what level of impairment is the cutoff for a "primary cause." That statistic is useless without knowing if an increased number of "drugged driving" offenses was offset by a corresponding decreased number of alcohol impaired offenses.
- chimeracoder 14y agoIf alcohol testing were like marijuana testing, almost every accident would be counted as a DUI. Because of the underlying chemistry involved, most statistics involving marijuana-related incidents vastly overstate instances of drugged driving, use, etc. This includes not just DUIs, but also numbers like the DAWN reports. Unlike almost any other drug, marijuana stays detectable in the system for 2 weeks on a test (for urine tests, which are the most common - in general, anywhere from 2 days to 3 months, depending on the type of test + usage habits). Since the effects of the drug only last for ~2-4 hours, that means that "testing positive" for marijuana is useless at indicating whether the person is actually under the influence, or just happened to use the drug at some point within the last two weeks. Contrast to most drugs - alcohol, for example, can only be detected for about as long as the person is impaired.
- signifiers 14y agoDidn't think I'd ever see a .gov page officially referencing: a) a ballot initiative, b) marijuana and c) Cheetos & Goldfish, but here you go: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=GovHickenlooper%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251633686228&pagename=CBONWrapper http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagenam...
- stinky613 14y agoThis is all well and good, but at this point there's no guarantee that the federal government won't slap it down. My limited understanding of the law suggests there are two avenues for the federal government to do so: I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1] Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2] II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3] A quick example of how the ICC could be applied: If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC. I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause [2]http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-m... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
- bsimpson 14y agoThe Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago. They said that Congress can regulate home-grown marijuana (even though they are only constitutionally allowed to regulate interstate commerce) because the presence of homegrown marijuana affects supply/demand in the interstate market for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich Baffling logic, but I wouldn't be optimistic for the federal authorities to be too foregiving here.
- Zak 14y agoThey ruled the same thing about wheat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn It seems obvious to me that the authors of the interstate commerce clause didn't intend it to grant the authority to regulate anything and everything just because an interstate market for it exists, but the courts are generally quite hesitant to invalidate Federal laws. Practically speaking, most drug enforcement happens at the state level. This means that individual users and small sellers in states that legalized marijuana probably won't have many issues, but you won't see ABC Liquor and Cannabis opening its doors any time soon.
- black_kiwi 14y agoI wonder what the increase in tourism and population is going to look like
- lsiebert 14y agoLegalization this is not. It's decriminalization under state law, but that doesn't mean that federal criminal laws go away. The Supreme Court is content to have both laws exist in force, IE, it didn't suggest in Gonzalez vs. Raich that medical marijuana laws are illegal exercises by the state, merely that they don't remove existing federal laws.