Author Topic: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use  (Read 65684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 5890
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1050 on: October 29, 2018, 06:18:05 AM »
I definitely agree with Chino on the difference.

What's going on is that when you smoke, it goes directly into the blood stream as is, and the effects are quick.

When you eat it though, it has to go through the liver first before hitting the blood stream and when it does, the liver metabolizes it into a slightly different compound, which many have reported as being stronger or at least different. Where people get into trouble with edibles is that they eat the cookie or whatever and since it takes longer to get into the blood stream, they think they didn't take enough and suddenly instead of one 10mg cookie, they go and take 2 more and end up going way further than they should have for a first time edible use. (freaking out with paranoia and such), but its more because they took too much rather than the edible itself being worse.

But it really comes down to the individual. Some people I know prefer one or the other. But if you do try out edibles, just take the one and give it time.
Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1051 on: October 29, 2018, 06:56:44 AM »
Look, let me be clear, I'm 100% unequivocally for the legalization of weed, so this isn't some old guy trying to find excuses to stick with the status quo, but I'd like to see some studies done on the pain management side of things (in a comparison with other substances, including alcohol).   

I played a lot of sports in my day (three sport varsity in high school, hockey into college, club for soccer and softball, softball in men's leagues up until I moved back to CT in 2013) and while I have a pretty high pain tolerance to start with (thanks Dad!) alcohol took that edge off just fine.  I can't help but thinking the "pain management" is sort of a duh in the sense of anything that dulls your senses would suffice.  Now, I get that being high is a shade more presentable than being slurry, falling over drunk, but that's a sort of false comparison.  I know plenty of people that were/are functioning alcoholics, taking the edge off without becoming sloppy (I have a friend, he's got to be 73, 74 or so, and since I've known him - almost 20 years now - he's started more days than not with a finger of vodka).

Again, not to begrudge; if that's your thing, that's your thing, but I hear some people talk about it like it's a magic elixir, and I'm skeptical. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1052 on: October 29, 2018, 07:11:10 AM »
Look, let me be clear, I'm 100% unequivocally for the legalization of weed, so this isn't some old guy trying to find excuses to stick with the status quo, but I'd like to see some studies done on the pain management side of things (in a comparison with other substances, including alcohol).   

I played a lot of sports in my day (three sport varsity in high school, hockey into college, club for soccer and softball, softball in men's leagues up until I moved back to CT in 2013) and while I have a pretty high pain tolerance to start with (thanks Dad!) alcohol took that edge off just fine.  I can't help but thinking the "pain management" is sort of a duh in the sense of anything that dulls your senses would suffice.  Now, I get that being high is a shade more presentable than being slurry, falling over drunk, but that's a sort of false comparison.  I know plenty of people that were/are functioning alcoholics, taking the edge off without becoming sloppy (I have a friend, he's got to be 73, 74 or so, and since I've known him - almost 20 years now - he's started more days than not with a finger of vodka).

Again, not to begrudge; if that's your thing, that's your thing, but I hear some people talk about it like it's a magic elixir, and I'm skeptical.

But that's where the CBD/THC ratios come into play. You can get an edible made of a strain of weed with virtually no THC content. You won't feel any psychoactive effects, but if the strain used was high in CBD content, you'll get that pain relief. And I wouldn't call it a magic elixir. Substances effect everyone differently. For example, Vicodin has no effect on me. I know people that can take two of those and they'll be stuck on a couch all day. I can eat them like M&Ms and won't feel a thing. When I was in the hospital after my balcony accident, the doctors found it kind of fascinating how virtually no pain management substances in their arsenal did anything for me. After trying a half dozen or so, they had to go straight to dilaudid. Same thing when it comes to me and alcohol. Alcohol does absolutely nothing for me in terms of pain or suppressing any kind of feeling. But for whatever reason, cannabis does.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2018, 07:24:26 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1053 on: October 29, 2018, 07:14:28 AM »
So that tells me it's more like another tool to help a broader group of people - those that might have been, shall we say, "underserved" by existing pain meds.  That makes sense. 

In that context, guys like Seth Rogan, with their "wink, wink, cards!" aren't doing the cause any good. 

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19150
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1054 on: October 29, 2018, 08:32:36 AM »
Marijuana doesn't have the addictive qualities of alcohol or opioids which is a huge reason why the medical use as a pain reliever has serious traction with marijuana.

And I agree, I notice that effect much more with edibles than from smoking.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21005
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1055 on: October 29, 2018, 08:33:43 AM »
Also, the paranoia, as you put it, is more a function of the type of weed you ingest and what's going on with you when you ingest it. A strain that's more likely to make you (as in you, Stadler) will have the same problem whether you eat it or smoke it. The difference is that when you smoke it it'll hit you very quickly and be over with just as fast. If you eat it you'll find it creeps up on you much more slowly and the effect lasts longer.

I can tell you that occasionally I'll still get very anxious from smoking. As a rule it's a 20 minute or so deal and then things smooth out and I'm happily stoned for a couple of hours. It's the initial rush that does it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1056 on: October 29, 2018, 12:20:11 PM »
I'm more interested in what Chino said; I've never given it even a second's thought but I wonder if my paranoia was situational as well?

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21005
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1057 on: October 29, 2018, 12:33:47 PM »
I'm more interested in what Chino said; I've never given it even a second's thought but I wonder if my paranoia was situational as well?
That's part of it, but some grass is just more prone towards anxiety than others. It just comes down to the near infinite ratios of the various canabinoids, like Chino said. That's why there are thousands of strains and new ones being invented every day.

Also, it's not just pain relief. It's obviously a great choice for people who've lost their appetite for whatever reason (d'uh), and there are a ton of psychological problems that could be better treated with pot than with, say, benzos or SSRIs. I know people who have to smoke to get to sleep (not me, I hate that shit), and they're much better off with a bowl of indica than they are taking Ambien. Ironically, the latter is far, far more likely to get you up in the middle of the night to cook a turkey.  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 5890
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1058 on: October 29, 2018, 05:21:36 PM »

 and there are a ton of psychological problems that could be better treated with pot than with, say, benzos or SSRIs.

I'm glad you brought that up. Stuff like Benzos and SSRIs, SNRIs, MOA inhibitors, tricyclics from what I've seen all just mask or dampen the problems that were causing the depression or whatever to begin with. It might help for a little while, but its not really curing anything.  I have had friends that have been able to work through some rough shit from their past using weed and actually have been able to move past those issues, which is awesome. 

I'm definitely with Stadler though. I want to see vast and extensive studies and really see what this plant is capable of.
Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1059 on: November 01, 2018, 11:13:44 AM »
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/10/31/Mexicos-Supreme-Court-legalizes-cannabis-for-recreational-use/9621541024238/

MEXICO CITY, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- Drug policy reformers claimed victory in Mexico City Wednesday after the country's Supreme Court handed down two rulings legalizing cannabis for all forms of non-commercial adult use.

"The rulings pave the way for adults to use marijuana in any way they see fit. We aren't just talking about recreational use," Froylán Enciso, a drug policy researcher at Mexico's social sciences institute, the CIDE, told UPI.

"The court has found that marijuana can be used for rituals, for recreational use, for medical use, at work, for scientific investigations. For any adult use and that it cannot be penalized," Enciso said.

The drug policy researcher said most people in prison in Mexico for drug crimes are incarcerated for possessing marijuana.


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1060 on: November 01, 2018, 11:39:21 AM »
I want to use marijuana for ritual use.  That sounds like fun.   

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21005
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1061 on: November 01, 2018, 12:36:00 PM »
I want to use marijuana for ritual use.  That sounds like fun.
One million Rastafarians seem to think so. That's the first thing I always think of when nimrod republicans blather on about religious liberty. "Oh, that's not a real religion! They just made it up."   :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 5890
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1062 on: November 01, 2018, 06:13:03 PM »
Speaking of ritual substance use, what do you guys think about Auyuasca and its use?
Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire


Offline vtgrad

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1063 on: November 02, 2018, 09:48:19 AM »
I'm more interested in what Chino said; I've never given it even a second's thought but I wonder if my paranoia was situational as well?
That's part of it, but some grass is just more prone towards anxiety than others. It just comes down to the near infinite ratios of the various canabinoids, like Chino said. That's why there are thousands of strains and new ones being invented every day.

Also, it's not just pain relief. It's obviously a great choice for people who've lost their appetite for whatever reason (d'uh), and there are a ton of psychological problems that could be better treated with pot than with, say, benzos or SSRIs. I know people who have to smoke to get to sleep (not me, I hate that shit), and they're much better off with a bowl of indica than they are taking Ambien. Ironically, the latter is far, far more likely to get you up in the middle of the night to cook a turkey.  :lol

I've never smoked myself, but I think I've had a "contact high" before... if that's actually a thing.  Was in Ohio (Coshocton) with my best friend at the time,  who later because a mid-level dealer in our little burg in VA before he got caught, and he and his brother toked up while we were watching a SRV concert and I remember sitting there trying to work Geometry and Trig problems (Sophomore in H.S. at the time) in my head because I was afraid of losing the ability to do them.  :lol  We went out to the local park at 2 AM and played basketball then went to a Hardees and got in a tater round fight and got thrown out by the night manager (who wasn't much older than me I don't think).  :lol Good times!

I don't consume, but I've got no problem with it... legalize it and let's make money off of it.
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."  Ecclesiastes 12:13

Now with Twitler taking a high end steak of this caliber and insulting the cow that died for it by having it well done just shows zero respect for the product, which falls right in line with the amount of respect he shows for pretty much everything else.- Lonestar

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 5890
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1064 on: November 07, 2018, 02:44:00 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota
Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1065 on: November 07, 2018, 05:49:08 AM »
Still waiting on the governor results in CT. If Stefanowski wins, we can kiss any chance of recreational here goodbye. He references public safety and wont sign anything until there's a roadside test available. I don't know why he's cool with not having roadside tests for things like Vicodin and people who huff air duster cans.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 05:59:41 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1066 on: November 07, 2018, 06:44:16 AM »
Still waiting on the governor results in CT. If Stefanowski wins, we can kiss any chance of recreational here goodbye. He references public safety and wont sign anything until there's a roadside test available. I don't know why he's cool with not having roadside tests for things like Vicodin and people who huff air duster cans.

Agreed, but another race with a complicated set of emotions.   I'm very much pro-legalization, but I don't know of all the other downsides of Ned Lamont ("Malloy's third term!"; if you saw the ads, you'll recognize that) outweigh that.   At least there's a roadmap to legalization with Stefanowski, slim though it may be.   I'm really tired of my representatives here in the State using my well-being, my tax dollars as a springboard to national recognition (Malloy, Murphy, Blumenthal, now Tong, Hayes... the fuck.)

EDIT:  I'm hearing rumbles that Stefanowski called Lamont to concede.   Ah well.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 06:49:46 AM by Stadler »

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1067 on: November 07, 2018, 07:06:27 AM »
Still waiting on the governor results in CT. If Stefanowski wins, we can kiss any chance of recreational here goodbye. He references public safety and wont sign anything until there's a roadside test available. I don't know why he's cool with not having roadside tests for things like Vicodin and people who huff air duster cans.

Agreed, but another race with a complicated set of emotions.   I'm very much pro-legalization, but I don't know of all the other downsides of Ned Lamont ("Malloy's third term!"; if you saw the ads, you'll recognize that) outweigh that.   At least there's a roadmap to legalization with Stefanowski, slim though it may be.   I'm really tired of my representatives here in the State using my well-being, my tax dollars as a springboard to national recognition (Malloy, Murphy, Blumenthal, now Tong, Hayes... the fuck.)

Agree completely.

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 8466
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1068 on: November 07, 2018, 10:06:12 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota

It failed in ND because they're republican racists. They tried to screw over the Native population with their Voter ID Law requiring a street address when the rez doesn't have street addresses, just P.O. on their ids.

In short...doesn't surprise me it failed in ND.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1069 on: November 07, 2018, 10:55:54 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota

It failed in ND because they're republican racists. They tried to screw over the Native population with their Voter ID Law requiring a street address when the rez doesn't have street addresses, just P.O. on their ids.

In short...doesn't surprise me it failed in ND.

I find that offensive.  Seriously.  Because they didn't kowtow to a specific special interest, they are "racists", and "republican" racists at that?   This law - upheld by the Supreme Court, by the way - is in play in several states, but miraculously it's not racist except in North Dakota, where 1,000 Native Americans (out of 70,000 North Dakota citizens, about 1.5% if my math is correct)* are impacted.   The law provides for several alternatives to a strict street address.   I'm not sure how it's racist to have one law that applies to all people equally.       



* Another source has about 2,750 Native Americans out of 65,000 North Dakotans - or about 4%.  In comparison, the Native American population is about 5% of the state's population, so in fact, the law UNDER impacts Native Americans.  https://www.commerce.nd.gov/uploads/8/CensusNewsletterDec2015.pdf

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1070 on: November 07, 2018, 11:00:15 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota

It failed in ND because they're republican racists.

This is kind of a really bad argument, man. Odds are it was voted down because there was nothing proposed in the way of how it would be regulated and taxed. ND already has a decent medical program, and many feared that without any kind of framework for legislators to go by, it could impact medicinal users.

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 8466
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1071 on: November 07, 2018, 11:40:20 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota

It failed in ND because they're republican racists.

This is kind of a really bad argument, man. Odds are it was voted down because there was nothing proposed in the way of how it would be regulated and taxed. ND already has a decent medical program, and many feared that without any kind of framework for legislators to go by, it could impact medicinal users.

I should've put that in sarcastic green. I just said that because I've seen stuff that is akin to what I posted. Didn't mean to offend.


Anyways...How I wish our state would put this on the ballot.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 5890
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1072 on: November 07, 2018, 11:40:50 AM »
If it were to get legalized on a federal level before being legal in every state, can the individual states choose to keep it illegal? Do I have that right? States can be more strict in a law than federal but not less strict?
Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1073 on: November 07, 2018, 11:52:25 AM »
If it were to get legalized on a federal level before being legal in every state, can the individual states choose to keep it illegal? Do I have that right? States can be more strict in a law than federal but not less strict?

It's not that cut and dry.   Always subject to the language of the statute and court review, but in the case of EXPLICIT conflict, the Federal law controls.    The states can afford more rights than the Federal government, but the state cannot abridge a specific right granted by the Federal government.    The problem comes in when you aren't talking about "rights"; no one has the RIGHT to smoke weed.  This isn't a "rights" issue.  Provided that they don't tread irreparably on Constitutional rights, States can still be more restrictive than the Fed in terms of what it criminalizes.

If it was just legalized - that is, no longer included on a Controlled Substance list - then states COULD still regulate it.  If it was deemed a "fundamental right" (no real chance of that) then it's a different analysis.   

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19150
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1074 on: November 07, 2018, 12:15:17 PM »
I'm not going to argue it is a fundamental right, but what could make it so?  It's a natural substance grown on planet earth.  I kind of feel it has a fundamental right to exist like any other natural substance.  But that may not make any sense in terms of law.  I'm not so sure it's a fundamental right to smoke or eat it, but I'm thinking it maybe has a fundamental right to exist in my backyard per say  :lol

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1075 on: November 07, 2018, 01:32:26 PM »
I'm not going to argue it is a fundamental right, but what could make it so?  It's a natural substance grown on planet earth.  I kind of feel it has a fundamental right to exist like any other natural substance.  But that may not make any sense in terms of law.  I'm not so sure it's a fundamental right to smoke or eat it, but I'm thinking it maybe has a fundamental right to exist in my backyard per say  :lol

Well, that it exists doesn't mean we have a right to do whatever we want with it.  It's a hard concept to cogently put into a pithy sentence, but fundamental rights are essentially those things that are inalienable and that governments can't infringe upon.  I can't bring firewood from Massachusetts into my state of Connecticut, so I don't know why I would have to have a right to have weed in my backyard.   

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19150
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1076 on: November 07, 2018, 01:36:11 PM »
Well, I'd have to grow it at this point so its moot, was just thinking hypothetically since I don't think there's anywhere in the US anymore that naturally grows marijuana.  If the weed were growing naturally, wouldn't it have a right to exist at least legally? 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1077 on: November 07, 2018, 01:37:06 PM »
I'm not going to argue it is a fundamental right, but what could make it so?  It's a natural substance grown on planet earth.  I kind of feel it has a fundamental right to exist like any other natural substance.  But that may not make any sense in terms of law.  I'm not so sure it's a fundamental right to smoke or eat it, but I'm thinking it maybe has a fundamental right to exist in my backyard per say  :lol

Well, that it exists doesn't mean we have a right to do whatever we want with it.  It's a hard concept to cogently put into a pithy sentence, but fundamental rights are essentially those things that are inalienable and that governments can't infringe upon.  I can't bring firewood from Massachusetts into my state of Connecticut, so I don't know why I would have to have a right to have weed in my backyard.

If a weed plant carried with it the emerald ash borer, you'd have an argument  ;)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1078 on: November 07, 2018, 01:43:58 PM »
Well, I'd have to grow it at this point so its moot, was just thinking hypothetically since I don't think there's anywhere in the US anymore that naturally grows marijuana.  If the weed were growing naturally, wouldn't it have a right to exist at least legally?

Sure; but it's more complicated than that. 

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19150
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1079 on: November 07, 2018, 01:45:30 PM »
of course it is, I guess was just thinking aloud when you mentioned fundamental rights

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21005
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1080 on: November 08, 2018, 10:21:19 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota

It failed in ND because they're republican racists. They tried to screw over the Native population with their Voter ID Law requiring a street address when the rez doesn't have street addresses, just P.O. on their ids.

In short...doesn't surprise me it failed in ND.

I find that offensive.  Seriously.  Because they didn't kowtow to a specific special interest, they are "racists", and "republican" racists at that?   This law - upheld by the Supreme Court, by the way - is in play in several states, but miraculously it's not racist except in North Dakota, where 1,000 Native Americans (out of 70,000 North Dakota citizens, about 1.5% if my math is correct)* are impacted.   The law provides for several alternatives to a strict street address.   I'm not sure how it's racist to have one law that applies to all people equally.       



* Another source has about 2,750 Native Americans out of 65,000 North Dakotans - or about 4%.  In comparison, the Native American population is about 5% of the state's population, so in fact, the law UNDER impacts Native Americans.  https://www.commerce.nd.gov/uploads/8/CensusNewsletterDec2015.pdf
I'm not going to defend BJ's point because I think he simply stated it poorly. The bolded is wrong, though. A law can apply to all people equally but effect them disproportionately. If the effect is to limit people of a specific group then it is racist. If I'm not mistaken this has been established time and again in the courts, though lately it's not longer holding much sway. 

Also, the various methods of "securing our electoral process" strike me as stunningly full of shit when put up against the strict scrutiny that should be applied. A compelling state interest should be something that actually requires concern, and in person voter fraud is so low as to realistically be a myth. Moreover, the least restrictive means should be least restrictive to all people, not just the ones the state wants to see vote.

You're a smart guy, and while I realize you don't want to look at it this way, you have to understand what these laws are about. You might argue on their behalf because as a lawyer you see them as reasonable, but on a practical level they're quite obviously intended to diminish the voting power of various groups of people (which is something the court really hasn't had a problem with over the last 20 some-odd years). 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1081 on: November 08, 2018, 10:53:19 AM »
Recreational passed in Michigan, but failed in North Dakota

It failed in ND because they're republican racists. They tried to screw over the Native population with their Voter ID Law requiring a street address when the rez doesn't have street addresses, just P.O. on their ids.

In short...doesn't surprise me it failed in ND.

I find that offensive.  Seriously.  Because they didn't kowtow to a specific special interest, they are "racists", and "republican" racists at that?   This law - upheld by the Supreme Court, by the way - is in play in several states, but miraculously it's not racist except in North Dakota, where 1,000 Native Americans (out of 70,000 North Dakota citizens, about 1.5% if my math is correct)* are impacted.   The law provides for several alternatives to a strict street address.   I'm not sure how it's racist to have one law that applies to all people equally.       



* Another source has about 2,750 Native Americans out of 65,000 North Dakotans - or about 4%.  In comparison, the Native American population is about 5% of the state's population, so in fact, the law UNDER impacts Native Americans.  https://www.commerce.nd.gov/uploads/8/CensusNewsletterDec2015.pdf
I'm not going to defend BJ's point because I think he simply stated it poorly. The bolded is wrong, though. A law can apply to all people equally but effect them disproportionately. If the effect is to limit people of a specific group then it is racist. If I'm not mistaken this has been established time and again in the courts, though lately it's not longer holding much sway. 

It's a well established point (about effect), but the numbers don't show that here.  The effect is NOT disproportionate. 

Quote
Also, the various methods of "securing our electoral process" strike me as stunningly full of shit when put up against the strict scrutiny that should be applied. A compelling state interest should be something that actually requires concern, and in person voter fraud is so low as to realistically be a myth. Moreover, the least restrictive means should be least restrictive to all people, not just the ones the state wants to see vote.

I hear this a lot, but this is - respectfully - an incomplete analysis.   It doesn't have to be "statistically relevant".  There's a compelling state interest in the integrity of the election, and part of that is the perception of integrity on the part of the people.  The TSA isn't actually moving the needle either, but we stand in long lines at the airport, in large part to FEEL safe, because if we don't, then we won't fly, and at this point, if we don't fly, the economy noticeably moves.   

Not a popular opinion, I'm sure, but my take on this is precisely 180 degrees; we're not really talking about "people that the state wants/doesn't want to see vote", we're talking about "people that specific politicians/activist groups WANT to see vote".   It's a similar thing with felons and the vote in Florida.   Replace the constitutionally mandated right to vote in that sentence with the constitutionally mandated right to own a gun.  Is it the same analysis?  I'm not addressing this to you, el Barto, but as a general question, we good with 1.4 million felons in Florida - who have served their time, paid their debt - owning guns?   

Quote
You're a smart guy, and while I realize you don't want to look at it this way, you have to understand what these laws are about. You might argue on their behalf because as a lawyer you see them as reasonable, but on a practical level they're quite obviously intended to diminish the voting power of various groups of people (which is something the court really hasn't had a problem with over the last 20 some-odd years).

Of course I see that aspect; but it's not exactly about "not wanting to look at it this way".  It goes deeper, and selfishly, I'd like to think you saw this coming:   I don't really care about the law itself, I care about the moral, socio-political baggage that is constantly tied to this kind of law.   The legislature - and the court - don't have to be "racist shit-bags" to be a part of this.   They don't have to be calculatingly trying to get 1,000 Indian votes off the docket.   I think that kind of thinking - rather, sending that impression - is necessary to create the necessary level of outrage in order to get 1,000 Indians ON the docket.  Meaning, there are political concerns on both sides of the equation here, and reducing it to "racist shitbags" both oversimplifies and diminishes that discussion. 

From the practical aspect, we can have two extremes:  anyone can walk in, no ID, no name, no nothing, and vote, or we can, say, have it so that you have to have a fixed address, a driver's license, pay a $250 fee, give your fingerprint, have a credit score over 675, be white, praise Jesus and vote.  The reality, in my view, should be somewhere in between, but closer to the first.  I think there is a benefit to having at least SOME level of rigor.  That's not a question of race, and in fact, I think there's an argument that it's demeaning to think that someone isn't capable of doing the bare minimum in order to have their voice heard.   There are PLENTY of rights to which we tie minimum requirements (gun licenses come to mind).

If I was a legislator in North Dakota, I would have supported that law, and I wuold have made it a point to go to the - I think there are three - large reservations in my State, sit down with tribal leadership, and FIGURE IT THE FUCK OUT.   "Hey guys, put up a 10'by10' lean-to, assign it  a street address - "1 Mohegan Sun Boulevard" (that's not a joke by the way) - and the entire reservation uses that.  We'll find funding for the mailer that goes out, and we'll figure out a way to get the tribe to fund the new driver's licenses and we'll reimburse the tribe via a trade deal" or some such shit.

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 5890
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1082 on: November 08, 2018, 07:42:50 PM »
So Sessions is out apparently. I guess we'll see where his replacement stands on the issue. 
Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire


Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 932
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1083 on: November 11, 2018, 04:53:35 PM »
So Sessions is out apparently. I guess we'll see where his replacement stands on the issue.

The interim is just as stringent. And if the rumored Chris Christie Attorney General becomes true, no shot.

But at the end of the day this needs to come from Congress. I suspect the next time the Dems hold both Houses we might see something. Not a chance with a GOP Congress.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14227
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
« Reply #1084 on: November 12, 2018, 07:23:25 AM »
Weed has to come from the Legislature.  Looking to the AG is simply a stop-gap.   They just enforce the law; if the law is fucked to begin with, they can't do anything about that with any certainty or permanence.