Hey, there! Log in / Register
So how would legalized pot work, exactly?
By adamg on Fri, 10/07/2016 - 9:23am
WBUR reads the entire 24-page marijuana-legalization act you'll be voting on next month and breaks it down for us. For starters, we'd get our very own Cannabis Control Commission.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Will this law address current racial disparities in drug arrests
Will this law prevent the racial disparities still occurring over pot in Colorado? Arrests dropped for white kids and rose for black kids.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/29/483954157/as-adults-legally-smoke-pot-in-c...
How the hell did you manage
How the hell did you manage to so quickly spout put comment about racism? Your comment has nothing to do with this post.
Oh I'm sure this would just
Oh I'm sure this would just attract the brightest minded crowd. Non shady characters across the land will flock here for their very own taste of Boston bud
People "Across the land" will
People "Across the land" will flock here? Several states legalized it already, including Alaska, Oregon, Washington State and DC, as well as the city of Portland Maine, and its been on sale in some of those for awhile now. And several more states along with MA (including nearby Maine) are voting to legalize it this November. So the fears of a mad rush of pot tourists is false. Considering how long it took for the (very limited) medical dispensaries to open, it will be into 2020 by the time anything happens, when it will probably be legal in 1/2 the states.
Riddle me this
How is pot legal in Portland, Maine, yet illegal in the State of Maine? I'm no expert in the law, but I've always been led to believe that state law trumps local ordinances.
I Assume...
... in the same way that it is legal in some states, but still illegal federally.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
This is exactly right
Law isn't just an abstract set of statutes - it also involves enforcers. And enforcers decide which laws to enforce.
For instance, it is illegal to jaywalk in Boston outside of some specific circumstances. But you're not going to be charged with it unless you severely disrupt traffic or cause an accident - it's a waste of resources to enforce a minor crime with no potential victims. The exceptions: you find a cop who really wants to write someone a ticket for something, or a cop with strong views on the evils of jaywalking on a one-man mission to end the scourge.
So, by way of analogy the feds, on orders from Eric Holder and Lorretta Lynch, have decided that state-sanctioned cannabis, while statutorily illegal, is essentially harmless, and enforcing the federal law would involve an extremely ugly and expensive constitutional fight about federal and state jurisdiction. Therefore the feds don't bother, other than some rogue actors in the DEA who are fiercely opposed to cannabis legalization.
Presumably Maine - Portland has a similar dynamic. The real question is why arch-conservative Paul LePage is letting it slide. Perhaps he's unaware? Or Portland is where he gets his pot and he doesn't want to ruin a good thing.
That's a different dog altogether
If the commerce is entirely within the state, the feds have very little say over it. Once it goes over state lines (for instance, if Washington State were selling pot grown in Idaho), you've got interstate commerce, which could bring the DEA into the equation.
I Understand
I wasn't talking about fed involvement. I was just pointing out that smaller governmental bodies sometimes make legal, within their boundaries, what a larger governmental body has not. The larger body may still prosecute, if it wants to, but folks know that the smaller body won't. And often the larger body chooses not to prosecute.
Much of what eventually becomes legal nationwide begins with one smaller entity - usually a state - declaring it legal first. Same sex marriage, for example. And, not to get too far afield, but that's why "state's rights" matters (and some state constitutions may have similar protective language regarding those that make up the state?)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Sales versus penalization
In Portland, ME, smoking a bowl won't get you arrested. You can't buy it from the state, though.
In Portland, OR, you can buy it in a legal shop and use it.
Oregon and Washington both phased in legal MJ
Washington and Oregon both had a period of time when they did not have any legal sales outlets, but completely quit arresting for possession.
Works the same for Portland, Maine: they aren't selling it, but they aren't arresting for it, either.
Make that 2018
Why is it that everything
Why is it that everything legal here has to be larded up with opportunities for grift?
SHORT ANSWER:
Capitalism. Slightly longer answer: Massachusetts
Capitalism is by far superior to alternatives
Which is why capitalist countries see massive immigration (the U.S. is the largest immigrant nation on earth, no other nation or block of nations (E.U. for example) take in more immigrants looking for a better life. That said, we have evolved into a nation of middle men and women, along with a huge bureaucracy at multiple levels, who scrounge off truly productive members of society. At some point, it's like a dog chasing it's tail.
What do you suggest as an alternative?
Have you even looked at the similar way that other states have done this?
How will it work, exactly.
I have no problem with "legalization" (excepting to the extent in increases the already increasing amount of smoking while driving that I am seeing).
The interesting thing is that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, use, manufacture and transport of marijuana will still be illegal under federal law. It is only because of a 2011 Justice Department memo written to selected US Attorneys that the feds are not prosecuting people in states where medicinal marijuana is legal under state law (and presumably, that will also apply to states where "recreational" is legal, at least because I believe that in states where recreational is legal, medicinal is also legal either explicitly or by logical implication).
This is interesting because that memo to US Attorneys is merely an exercise of prosecutorial discretion (or "resource allocation" as described in the memo), does not have the force of law, and can be rescinded at any time. As there is about to be a chance in the administration, which will almost certainly bring a change in the Attorney General, I, as a potential investor, would not be plunking down a big chunk of change on any marijuana related commerce any time soon.
I leave it to all of you to decide which presidential candidate's pick for AG might be more likely to rescind the guidance memo (it being understood that it is entirely possible that no one will). That said, one has been styled as a "law and order" type.
Please provide support for this assertion
Consider that four states have already legalized pot 1-4 years ago.
Support for the Assertion
In Washington state:
This comes from AAA Foundation Research, link to full article:http://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/05/fatal-road-crashes-involving-marijuana-d...
As a pedestrian, over the summer I passed or was passed by an increased number of cars from which the unmistakable smell of pot was evident-which I suppose you can argue is the result of decriminalization. I am voting FOR Q4, mainly because I am so disgusted with how our state so ineptly handled the implementation of medical marijuana, but I am certainly aware that there will be negative impact.
"recently used"
Define.
THC hangs around for 30 days
Nein.
I wasn't intending to assert that there would be an increase. Rather, I was conveying that I don't have a problem with legalization unless it creates an increase (in which case I do have a problem with it).
My hostility to demands for statistical support on UHub is well documented (because I think this resource is most useful as a barometer of how people feel about issues in a qualitative kind of way - I would consult scientific literature if I wanted something more, not a Internet blog site). That said, I think that the poster above provided reasonably convincing evidence from a reasonably respected source that there might very well be an uptick.
Now, have you any comments on the main point of my post, i.e., that the use, manufacture and transport of marijuana will still be illegal under federal law, and few people seem to be considering what that might mean?
I'm not the poster you were
I'm not the poster you were speaking to, but I'd like to respond to your question anyway. In my view, as more and more states pass legalization bills it puts pressure on the federal government to also reconsider the laws that are currently on the books. Without the individual states legalizing weed first, I think it would remain a schedule 1 drug forever. But with the changing sentiment among the public and the momentum that has been building with regards to legalization bills at a state level, federal lawmakers are forced to examine legalization on a federal level.
Disclaimer: I have never smoked weed, but I hope it is legalized. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure and has done much more harm than good.
how legalized pot would work
i just read the whole thing and I have two questions........ wait I have to read it again.
Suits inititating suits
Why do I think that a lot of people who don't smoke or use pot, like lobbyists and lawyers, are going to be the real winners on this one?
What makes you think ...
That those people don't use pot?
24 pages??
Like it or hate it, no 24-page bill should be up for a yes-or-no vote by the general populace.
The legislative process is much maligned, and for good reason; but at least it gives various stakeholders the opportunity to comment and revise a proposed bill. No bill is perfect, and most can be improved or refined.
Very few people are going to read the proposed bill, even fewer are going to understand it completely. An up or down vote on something this complex makes no sense.
Its really not all that complex....
they just wrote every detail in so no one could point at something and go "But WHAT ABOUT THIS! OR THAT!" I listened to the "debate" on NPR and the anti pot guy kept saying shit where I was like "Did this guy even read the ballot question? I mean, they send that pamphlet out to every house right?" Pretty much every possible scenario is covered in the bill.
But...
What it REALLY boils down to is very, very simple.
Does MA want money from this industry or not?
That's it. No other factors on this issue matter, because they all exist already. What about the children and marketing to them? Already exists. What about the public health issues? Already exists. But it's a gateway drug! Always "has been." It will lead to opiate use! That is just stupid.
Literally, the question is: Does MA want a bunch of extra money or not?
Is there a better alternative
Is there a better alternative? On the other extreme, you could have a two word referendum titled "legalize pot", but the devil is in the details and that would leave too much room for interpretation. A lot of verbiage and complexity is necessary to specify those details.
This is an excellent point.
n/t
Right
We want our laws to be simple and rife with ambiguities and loopholes demanding judgement calls from idealogues.
You clearly don't understand how your government works
The legislature, confronted with an initiative like this, not only has a chance to take it up ... it has to act to put it on the ballot.
This is on the ballot because the legislature punted it there. They didn't have the guts to act on it.
READ!!!
Blame your state reps for being gutless wonders. Don't whine about it being "too complicated". Not everything in life works well as bullet points on a powerpoint anyway.
Better than the alternative
The medical marijuana ballot question was much shorter, and was apparently written with the good-faith assumption that if it was passed, the state legislature would respect the public will and iron out the details pretty quickly. They, uh, didn't do that. So now we get ballot questions that spell everything out in excruciating detail so that they can't be stalled in committee for six years.
Here a new
Design concept to the law cutting it down by 23 pages "pot is evil and not allowed. Period. End of story. You tokie you get put in the pokey."
All right!
All right! Second hand pot smoke for everyone!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hazards-of-secondhand-marijuana-smoke/
Because people aren't already
Because people aren't already smoking pot now?
Ever get to the Northwest or Colorado?
The only place I smelled any weed in Denver was under a bridge on a bike path. That's all.
I rarely smell it in Portland or Seattle when I visit - in fact, much less in Seattle than before it became totally legal.
Why? Probably the availability of edibles. Chocolates, candies, brownies with calibrated dosages of THC. Some people still prefer to toke, but the market for edibles is huge because they get around the smoke problem. I myself took one to a firetrap nightclub and enjoyed it just before the opening act hit the stage. For that venue, these were such an improvement on people hiding lit joints and such that they had a cutter attached to a garbage can so you could open the packaging (which is very tough in order to resist kids and pets).
No smoking doesn't just mean no smoking tobacco. It means no smoking pot, too. That goes for your apartment lease and indoor spaces anywhere in the Commonwealth. That doesn't change, either.
That's funny
Because you can often smell it around Boston. I was going by Northeastern on Huntington Ave a few days ago and it was overpowering for several blocks. It's also common n warm weather in the public gardens and Common.
IN DTX and the Common
Thee's never a time when I don't smell weed.
Not open sailing for tokers and tasters
No one above seems to have noticed that employers will still be able to require testing and make employment decisions based on the result exactly as they do today.
If THC really does stay in the system for 30 days, this is going to be a problem for a lot of people.
Not a new thing
So many people already smoke and have been dealing with drug tests for a long time (myself included). Shockingly, many of them are able to hold down jobs. Just because it's going to be legal doesn't mean that more people will do it and fail drug tests. You just lay off for a bit and start again once you get the job. Anyone who's a regular smoker knows this.