3 ms·

The "out of other states" part is what is obviously going to do it. It's just like guns, you can't keep guns out of one state if you can buy them freely in a ne

by Kequc 13y ago

The "out of other states" part is what is obviously going to do it. It's just like guns, you can't keep guns out of one state if you can buy them freely in a neighbouring state. It's the same thing here.

wavefunction 13y ago
The surrounding states are already awash with cannabis (even and especially Utah). Right-thinking people just have to keep browbeating the prohibitionists back into their corners until they can't do anything any more. I'm the first person to try to appeal to another's sense of logic, but logic is obviously not what the Prohibitionists are operating on. Prohibition has failed, failed spectacularly and expensively and there is simply no room to try some sort of half-measure to appease those that think it can still work. These sorts of people simply need to understand that their opinion doesn't matter at all and will be completely discounted, sad to say.
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  And given a little time, this should have significant economic benefits (more tax revenue, less spending) to help with the "browbeating."
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    Yeah, I like Colorado's legislation because you can grow some if you want to, or you can just go and pay a business that pays taxes for some high-quality stuff without all the work if that's what you want. The rest of the West should just go ahead, they're already there.
MWil 13y ago
Well it's a little different than guns. (Old man voice) "They don't grow on trees, you know!" If it's couched in terms of black/white:pass/fail for keeping it out of other states then it's doomed to fail and the DOJ will come down hard. But Colorado shouldn't be in charge of watching the movement of stuff that's legal to own and sell inside it's jurisdiction. It's duty is to regulate how to own and sell inside the same area. Period. It would, however, be the job of neighbouring states that didn't want it to spill over to maintain their borders appropriately and of course it falls on individual citizens to respect the borders. Where it differs from guns is, unlike Supreme Court reasoning to the contrary, if there was adequate intrastate supply b/c of the ability to maintain personal plants then interstate exchange shouldn't be much of an issue anymore (obviously that's a gradual process).
- pavpanchekha 13y ago
  Potter the commerce clause, it is actually the federal government's job to ensure the drugs don't cross state lines. Hence the Justice department's insistence.
  - MWil 13y ago
    Except the federal govt's job would be complete if it allowed intrastate commerce. It's circular. Marijuana isn't a scheduled drug b/c it needs to be kept out of interstate commerce. It's part of interstate commerce b/c it's a scheduled drug for some other reason or reasons that don't really make a great deal of sense.

by Kequc 13y ago

wavefunction 13y ago

The surrounding states are already awash with cannabis (even and especially Utah). Right-thinking people just have to keep browbeating the prohibitionists back into their corners until they can't do anything any more. I'm the first person to try to appeal to another's sense of logic, but logic is obviously not what the Prohibitionists are operating on. Prohibition has failed, failed spectacularly and expensively and there is simply no room to try some sort of half-measure to appease those that think it can still work. These sorts of people simply need to understand that their opinion doesn't matter at all and will be completely discounted, sad to say.

ojbyrne 13y ago
And given a little time, this should have significant economic benefits (more tax revenue, less spending) to help with the "browbeating."
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Yeah, I like Colorado's legislation because you can grow some if you want to, or you can just go and pay a business that pays taxes for some high-quality stuff without all the work if that's what you want. The rest of the West should just go ahead, they're already there.

MWil 13y ago

Well it's a little different than guns. (Old man voice) "They don't grow on trees, you know!" If it's couched in terms of black/white:pass/fail for keeping it out of other states then it's doomed to fail and the DOJ will come down hard. But Colorado shouldn't be in charge of watching the movement of stuff that's legal to own and sell inside it's jurisdiction. It's duty is to regulate how to own and sell inside the same area. Period. It would, however, be the job of neighbouring states that didn't want it to spill over to maintain their borders appropriately and of course it falls on individual citizens to respect the borders. Where it differs from guns is, unlike Supreme Court reasoning to the contrary, if there was adequate intrastate supply b/c of the ability to maintain personal plants then interstate exchange shouldn't be much of an issue anymore (obviously that's a gradual process).

pavpanchekha 13y ago
Potter the commerce clause, it is actually the federal government's job to ensure the drugs don't cross state lines. Hence the Justice department's insistence.
- MWil 13y ago
  Except the federal govt's job would be complete if it allowed intrastate commerce. It's circular. Marijuana isn't a scheduled drug b/c it needs to be kept out of interstate commerce. It's part of interstate commerce b/c it's a scheduled drug for some other reason or reasons that don't really make a great deal of sense.