United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Governor who called legalization 'reckless' now says Colorado's pot industry is working
Source:
L.A. Times
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na ... 60516-20160516-snap-story.html
Published: May 17, 2016
Author: David Kelly
Post Date: 2016-05-17 12:55:09 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13007
Comments: 97
When Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana four years ago, one of the move's chief critics was Gov. John Hickenlooper. The moderate Democrat said that if he could "wave a magic wand" to reverse the decision, he would. Then he called voters "reckless" for approving it in the first place, a remark he later downgraded to "risky." “Colorado is known for many great things,” Hickenlooper said. “Marijuana should not be one of them.” But the governor’s views have softened. During a recent panel discussion at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, he said that despite opposing the legalization of pot, his job was to “deliver on the will of the people of Colorado.” “If I had that magic wand now, I don’t know if I would wave it,” he said. “It’s beginning to look like it might work.” It was the latest in a series of comments Hickenlooper has made signaling what looks like an evolution of his views on marijuana. In April last year, during an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Hickenlooper said legal weed was “not as vexing as we thought it was going to be.” And during an appearance on "60 Minutes," he predicted that Colorado might “actually create a system that could work” in successfully regulating marijuana. Why the change? “The predictions of fire and brimstone have failed to materialize,” said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national group working to reform pot laws. “Most Coloradoans, including the governor, recognize that the law is working.” From the start, Hickenlooper saw the legalization of marijuana as a great national experiment, something utterly new in this country and fraught with potential public health and safety issues. He fretted about a potential rise in drug use among children and was clearly uncomfortable with an amendment directly conflicting with federal law, which considers pot an illegal drug on par with cocaine. There were plenty of snags at first. Marijuana edibles proved especially problematic because few people had experience with them. High-profile overdoses made national news. Just last week a lawsuit was filed against the maker of a marijuana-laced candy, alleging the product triggered a "psychotic episode" that caused a man to kill his wife in 2014. Still, none of Hickenlooper’s worst fears were realized. Colorado is booming. The state has a 4.2% unemployment rate, one of the best in the country. High-tech companies are moving in. Small towns across the state, some once teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, have been saved by tax revenues from pot dispensaries. And the $1-billion-a-year cannabis business will pump $100 million in taxes into state coffers this year. Andrew Freedman, director of marijuana coordination for Colorado, said the governor’s views reflect a growing sense of optimism about how the industry is regulated. “In the short run, there have been a lot fewer public safety and health issues than the governor feared in the beginning,” said Freedman, who is often referred to as the state’s marijuana czar. “In the beginning, we had problems with edibles and hash oil fires but now, for the most part, Colorado looks a lot like it did before legalization.” Marijuana consumption has not changed much from pre-legalization levels and there has been no significant increase in public health and safety problems, he said. As for the $100 million in tax revenue, Freedman noted, that's out of a $27-billion state budget. Some 70% of the money is earmarked for school construction, public health initiatives and other projects. The rest goes back into regulating the industry. “The governor has called this a grand experiment from the beginning. He looks at data points as he goes along and I think he’s pleasantly surprised that there were not as many challenges as he thought,” Freedman said. “He would say the jury is still out on this experiment but he’s optimistic.” Some are less circumspect. “The state’s image is actually rising. We were just ranked as the best place to live in America,” Tvert said. “The idea that businesses would not relocate here or conferences wouldn’t be held here was untrue. In fact, attendees at conferences are now offered pot tours as day trips.” Kelly is a special correspondent based in Denver.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#56)
consider source
His feelings.
That's where the suit would leave it - as I already quoted: 'They do not challenge Colorado’s authority to legalize marijuana generally, nor do they seek an order compelling Colorado law enforcement officials to take any particular actions against marijuana traffickers. They in fact disclaim any intent to do so: “Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Keep going, dullard.
That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit. That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot. Do try to keep up. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Too dim to find and read the actual decision. So predictable.
Colorado's regulation of pot legalized the manufacture, possession, and distribution of it. Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization and places marijuana under federal control.
What "decision"? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level. It remains as illegal as ever. Hypothetically, a President Trump could decide to enforce the Federal law and to withdraw any and all form of Federal benefits to renegade states, or perhaps the Federal government could charge, try, and convict the Governor for aiding, abetting, facilitating, or promoting the citizenry of Colorado in the violation of Federal laws. That there is no State criminal statute against pot does not change the fact that there is a Federal statute that President Obama is failing to enforce. A different president may choose to fully enforce the Federal law. Or not.
Nope. Colorado actually legalized it for those 21 and older. No penalties. You can grow it, buy it, smoke it, carry it around and give it to friends. It is still, however, illegal at the federal level but Obama has said the DOJ will not enforce federal law in states that legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use. Yes, Trump can change that policy. I hope he does. And I agree with you that the Governor of Colorado should be arrested and charged with sedition, along with anyone in the state legislature who voted for legalization.
Once again you're putting words in my mouth. Ending regulation ends the Colorado legalization program. The federal government would then be responsible for enforcing federal marijuana laws in Colorado. Colorado cannot be forced to enforce federal law. Nor can Colorado be forced to write state laws making marijuana illegal. But then you'd have a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner. You know what? I'm with you on this one. Colorado should NOT re-establish penalties. Let's see what REAL Libertarian freedom is like.
Nope. Colorado has no authority to override Federal law. Pot is unlawful today in all 50 states. It is just that the Obama Administration is not enforcing the law. It is no more legal than open borders or sanctuary cities. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-d/section-841/ §841. Prohibited acts A (a) Unlawful acts Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or (2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance. (b) Penalties Except as otherwise provided in section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: (1)(A) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving— (i) 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (ii) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of— (I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; (II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers; (III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III); (iii) 280 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base; (iv) 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); (v) 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); (vi) 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- [ 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ] propanamide or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide; (vii) 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 1,000 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or (viii) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers; such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $10,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $50,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $20,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $75,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits a violation of this subparagraph or of section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without release and fined in accordance with the preceding sentence. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph. No person sentenced under this subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. (B) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving— (i) 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (ii) 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of— (I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; (II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers; (III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III); (iii) 28 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base; (iv) 10 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); (v) 1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); (vi) 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- [ 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ] propanamide or 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide; (vii) 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or (viii) 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers; such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $5,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $25,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $8,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $50,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposed under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 8 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph. No person sentenced under this subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. (C) In the case of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, gamma hydroxybutyric acid (including when scheduled as an approved drug product for purposes of section 3(a)(1)(B) of the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000), or 1 gram of flunitrazepam, except as provided in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D), such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 3 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 6 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under the provisions of this subparagraph which provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment if death or serious bodily injury results, nor shall a person so sentenced be eligible for parole during the term of such a sentence. (D) In the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 50 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight, 10 kilograms of hashish, or one kilogram of hashish oil, such person shall, except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 if the defendant is an individual or $2,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. (E)(i) Except as provided in subparagraphs (C) and (D), in the case of any controlled substance in schedule III, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 if the defendant is an individual or $2,500,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. (ii) If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. (iii) Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. [...] (Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §401, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1260; Pub. L. 95–633, title II, §201, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3774; Pub. L. 96–359, §8(c), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1194; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§224(a), 502, 503(b)(1), (2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2030, 2068, 2070; Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §§1002, 1003(a), 1004(a), 1005(a), 1103, title XV, §15005, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–2, 3207–5, 3207–6, 3207–11, 3207–192; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §§6055, 6254(h), 6452(a), 6470(g), (h), 6479, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4318, 4367, 4371, 4378, 4381; Pub. L. 101–647, title X, §1002(e), title XII, §1202, title XXXV, §3599K, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4828, 4830, 4932; Pub. L. 103–322, title IX, §90105(a), (c), title XVIII, §180201(b)(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1987, 1988, 2047; Pub. L. 104–237, title II, §206(a), title III, §302(a), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3103, 3105; Pub. L. 104–305, §2(a), (b)(1), Oct. 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 3807; Pub. L. 105–277, div. E, §2(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–759; Pub. L. 106–172, §§3(b)(1), 5(b), 9, Feb. 18, 2000, 114 Stat. 9, 10, 13; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, §3005(a), title IV, §4002(d)(2)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1805, 1809; Pub. L. 109–177, title VII, §§711(f)(1)(B), 732, Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 262, 270; Pub. L. 109–248, title II, §201, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 611; Pub. L. 110–425, §3(e), (f), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4828, 4829; Pub. L. 111–220, §§2(a), 4(a), Aug. 3, 2010, 124 Stat. 2372.)
I was referring to your statement, "Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level". They did not. They legalized it at the state level. You are correct that pot remains illegal in all 50 states at the federal level.
Trump: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/29/trump-wants-marijuana-legalization-decided-at-the-state-level/ A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Agreed. That's what the suit calls for: an end to the regulation - "affirmative authorization" - of pot but not its legality ("Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana"). You're not with me on this one because I don't want pot legal for children (nor does pot being sold anywhere by anyone strike me as a good idea). But again, that's what the suit calls for - which is why my answer to "Should the suit go nowhere?" is "yes". A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I'd like to see that (and a whole lot of others issues) decided by each state, too. But it wouldn't work. Already the legal marijuana in Colorado is being found in the surrounding states where it remains illegal.
Because the suit doesn't call for re-criminalization?
Because the sum total of what it calls and doesn't call for is, as you said, "a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And alcohol from elsewhere is found in dry counties; what's the proper policy conclusion? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The suit calls for ending the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. It does not prevent Colorado from enacting new marijuana laws. What's your problem with that?
False analogy. It's perfectly legal to possess and consume alcohol in a dry county. A "dry" county is one which does not sell or serve alcohol.
The suit calls for ending the "legalization program", i.e. regulation, of marijuana for recreational use. It does not prevent nor require Colorado's enacting new marijuana laws. You pointed out the problem with that: "a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If alcohol from elsewhere were found in Alaska's "local option communities" that ban the sale, importation, and possession of alcohol*, what would be the proper policy conclusion? *https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/9/pub/ABC/DryDampCommunities/Localopt01-22-15.pdf A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The conclusion would be that it's difficult, if not impossible, to keep recreational drugs from crossing local borders. This same conclusion led to national Prohibition.
Which is why Colorado would voluntarily re-enact their old laws. No one has to force them.
The conclusion would be that it's difficult, if not impossible, to keep recreational drugs from crossing local borders. This same conclusion led to national Prohibition. Should it lead there again? If not, why should the same difficulties with regard to marijuana lead to (or keep us at) national marijuana prohibition? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Which is why Colorado would voluntarily re-enact their old laws. Far from clear. Their old laws saw dealers on less than every street corner - but did a poor job (if national averages are any guide) in keeping pot away from kids, while ensuring that ONLY cartels and other criminals profited from the pot trade. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Fine. So they wouldn't. I really don't care whether they do or they don't. Why is this an issue with you?
Let's see. Alcohol is finding it's way from one community in Alaska to another community in Alaska. You're asking if we should consider going back to nationwide Prohibition because of that? Answer: No. "If not, why should the same difficulties with regard to marijuana lead to (or keep us at) national marijuana prohibition?" Since Alaska's problems are not interstate, Congress doesn't have the authority.
If a significant amount of the alcohol in Alaska comes from the lower 48 (and I wouldn't be surprised if it did), there's your "substantial effect" basis for congressional action. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Really? You don't care if the suit leads Colorado to consider its least bad remaining option to be "a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner"? I don't want to see Colorado thus cornered. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Is it? Seems farfetched, in that they can literally go next door to get whatever they want. The marijuana coming out of Colorado, however, is real and presents a problem to the adjacent states. Perhaps Colorado should spend some of that tax revenue to keep a lid on it.
Colorado should consider it's experiment in legal marijuana to be a failure and simply go back to the way it was before Amendment 64.
And where did next door get it? Do Nebraska and Oklahoma have no state-grown pot? (Pun intended?) I'd like to see these states reach a solution with discretion and prudence - of which the suit offers none. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. How has it failed? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Colorado is being sued because they failed to keep their crap within state lines. You call that success? How has it failed. Buy a fucking clue for once.
Who cares where they legally got it and why does that concern you? "Do Nebraska and Oklahoma have no state-grown pot?" You mean state-grown pot that they sell to recreational users including children? I mean, that's the is issue here, right? Or do you wish to change the subject? "I'd like to see these states reach a solution with discretion and prudence - of which the suit offers none.' I'm guessing the lawsuit was the result of a failed attempt to reach a solution with discretion and prudence. No? You think Nebraska and Oklahoma just decided one day to commit millions of dollars t to a lawsuit?
That means nothing to the evaulation of success unless and until Colorado loses the suit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If next door got it from the lower 48 (and I wouldn't be surprised if it did), there's your "substantial effect" basis for congressional action. Pot grown in Nebraska and Oklahoma, in violation of state law, would be sold to recreational users - and, due to lack of effective regulation in the black market, that would include children - yes. If that exists in more than negligible quantities, then that situation remains comparable to that of Alaska's "local option communities" that ban the sale, importation, and possession of alcohol and their neighbors who let their interstate-commerce-acquired alcohol into those communities. I doubt the suit was their first move - but I have no idea whether their final offer to Colorado represented discretion and prudence as opposed to, say, a desire to beat the Reefer Madness drum for the voters. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. go nowhere
#59. To: misterwhite (#42)
Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?
#60. To: misterwhite (#57)
I never said it should be unregulated.
#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
“Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”
Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion. Just that Colorado's affirmative authorization of the manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana presents a substantial obstacle to Congress's objectives under the CSA to establish a national, comprehensive, uniform and closed statutory scheme to control the market in controlled substances in order to prevent the abuse and diversion of those substances.
#62. To: Roscoe (#61)
Keep going
Colorado's affirmative authorization
#63. To: ConservingFreedom (#62)
That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit.
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#62)
"That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot."
#65. To: Roscoe (#63)
Too dim to find and read the actual decision.
#66. To: misterwhite (#64)
Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization
#67. To: misterwhite, ConservingFreedom (#64)
Colorado's regulation of pot legalized the manufacture, possession, and distribution of it. Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization and places marijuana under federal control
#68. To: nolu chan (#67)
"Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level. It remains as illegal as ever."
#69. To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
"Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such."
#70. To: misterwhite (#68)
Nope. Colorado actually legalized it for those 21 and older. No penalties. You can grow it, buy it, smoke it, carry it around and give it to friends.
Prohibited acts A - 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2013)
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
#72. To: misterwhite (#68)
Yes, Trump can change that policy. I hope he does.
#73. To: misterwhite (#69)
Colorado cannot be forced to enforce federal law. Nor can Colorado be forced to write state laws making marijuana illegal.
But then you'd have a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner.
You know what? I'm with you on this one. Colorado should NOT re-establish penalties. Let's see what REAL Libertarian freedom is like.
#74. To: ConservingFreedom (#72)
(Edited)
"Trump: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state"
#75. To: ConservingFreedom (#73)
"which is why my answer to "Should the suit go nowhere?" is "yes".
#76. To: misterwhite (#75)
#77. To: misterwhite (#74)
(Edited)
Already the legal marijuana in Colorado is being found in the surrounding states where it remains illegal.
#78. To: ConservingFreedom (#76)
#79. To: ConservingFreedom (#77)
(Edited)
"And alcohol from elsewhere is found in dry counties"
#80. To: misterwhite (#78)
The suit calls for ending the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. It does not prevent Colorado from enacting new marijuana laws. What's your problem with that?
#81. To: misterwhite (#74)
Already the legal marijuana in Colorado is being found in the surrounding states where it remains illegal.
#82. To: ConservingFreedom (#81)
#83. To: ConservingFreedom (#80)
"You pointed out the problem with that: "a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner."
#84. To: misterwhite (#82)
"If alcohol from elsewhere were found in Alaska's "local option communities" that ban the sale, importation, and possession of alcohol*, what would be the proper policy conclusion?"
#85. To: misterwhite (#83)
'You pointed out the problem with that: "a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner."'
#86. To: ConservingFreedom (#85)
"Far from clear."
#87. To: ConservingFreedom (#84)
"Should it lead there again?"
#88. To: misterwhite (#87)
Alcohol is finding it's way from one community in Alaska to another community in Alaska. [...] Since Alaska's problems are not interstate, Congress doesn't have the authority.
#89. To: misterwhite (#86)
I really don't care whether they do or they don't.
#90. To: ConservingFreedom (#88)
"If a significant amount of the alcohol in Alaska comes from the lower 48 (and I wouldn't be surprised if it did), there's your "substantial effect" basis for congressional action."
#91. To: ConservingFreedom (#89)
"You don't care if the suit leads Colorado to consider its least bad remaining option to be "a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner"?
#92. To: misterwhite (#90)
Seems farfetched, in that they can literally go next door to get whatever they want.
Perhaps Colorado should spend some of that tax revenue to keep a lid on it.
#93. To: misterwhite (#91)
Colorado should consider it's experiment in legal marijuana to be a failure
#94. To: ConservingFreedom (#93)
(Edited)
"How has it failed?"
#95. To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
(Edited)
"And where did next door get it?"
#96. To: misterwhite (#94)
(Edited)
Colorado is being sued because they failed to keep their crap within state lines. You call that success?
#97. To: misterwhite (#95)
Who cares where they legally got it
You mean state-grown pot that they sell to recreational users including children?
I'm guessing the lawsuit was the result of a failed attempt to reach a solution with discretion and prudence.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]