Stoners rejoice (almost)

[el_chode]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL

California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced today by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco.

The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.

Ammiano said taxes and other fees that accompany regulation could put more than a billion dollars a year into state coffers at a time when revenues continue to decline. He said he anticipates the federal government could soften its stance on marijuana under the Obama administration.

"We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion," Ammiano said. "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."

A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Agency in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the proposal.

The use of marijuana for medical conditions has been legal in California since voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996.

[Kenny76]

And here I was lovin my home state of Massachusetts for decriminalizing an ounce or less...

we might be getting smoked under the table.  And CA has perhaps the world's best weed.  Think of the tourist dollars too.

[capt. scotty]

Oh my lord. I quit smoking mostly because I was getting too paranoid about getting busted and I wont be able to once I get a real job anyway.

I might change my plans of living in the southeast to living in Cali  8-)

[tomEisenbraun]

Very nice!

That could set quite a nice example, and I'm getting the feeling that people are getting closer and closer to understanding that it's really not as big a problem as they'd like it to be. The people who wouldn't have smoked before probably still won't, or perhaps might be open to try it without the pressure and stigma surrounding it that there once was, and it could, hopefully, be a whole lot less of a big deal.

[pawpaw]

I haven't smoked weed for several years, but I used to, like a fiend. If this were to pass, I might partake a time or two a year, but I don't see my consumption frequency being altered much one way or another.

The timing in proposing this bill could be quite good though. With the state's finances A COMPLETE FUCKING DISASTER, the amount of tax income proposed will be pretty attractive...plus, ya know, it's weed, and it would be LEGAL!!! I know a few activist friends that must be going fucking nuts right now, mobilizing the troops.

God Bless California.  8-)

[Bigsky]

I haven't smoked weed for several hours, but I'm about to. I hope it's a nationwide trend...

I really hope this could open the door for the cultivation of hemp; therfore lowering the amount of trees that need to be cleared.

[el_chode]

Here's my legal buzzkill:

There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.

However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.

If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.

It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.

/class dismissed.

And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.

[ycartrob]

if this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!

[Jbones72]

I think I read recently that a medical marijuana law may get passed in the Garden State! If so I'll be visiting my NJ family more frequently!

[capt. scotty]

I think I read recently that a medical marijuana law may get passed in the Garden State! If so I'll be visiting my NJ family more frequently!

1 of my best friends who now lives in Colorado Springs now gets medical marijuana. When he first told me, I thought he was totally kidding but he gets it. He's pretty much your stereotypical stoner to a tee. I guess he had a shoulder problem though, and the Doc just brought it up and he was like "oh, really"...and end of the story is he can grow I think 6 plants which some grower does for him and then gives it to him.

All I know is it sounds pretty sweet and he's getting all types of Funk for the cheap. Bastard.

[tomEisenbraun]

if this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!

I will gladly help you make a profit!

[Ruckus]

Here's my legal buzzkill:

There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.

However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.

If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.

It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.

/class dismissed.

And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.

Lot more than pesky.  We'll see if it is revisited.  Of course it came down to ""could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial."  It's all about aggregation baby!

Anyone have any studies that include models that predict the short and long term affects on crime based on legalization?

No more prosecution of minor offenders vs. increase in say robberies by former street level dealers now out of income

[Penny Lane]

Here's my legal buzzkill:

There's a pesky case called Gonzales v Raich from 2005 (2005 was a horrible year for Supreme Court Cases). It basically said that when it comes to weed and states doing their own thing, Congress has the power to say "not so fast" before you can even burn some popcorn. Of the 3 justices who thought the case was absurd (in very well-reasoned dissents), 2 no longer sit (Rehnquist and O'Connor). So that doesn't bode well.

However, something like this COULD provide a chance to revisit the case. And with Clarence Thomas already one of the dissenters, and Scalia not totally buying the original argument, AND since Obama seems to be fairly ambivalent on the issue, AND with Ginsberg on the outs, we have hope.

If this hope came out and reversed that case, it could potentially open the door to a lot of great things since it would give states a bit more autonomy.

It seems that so far, when it comes to medicinal purposes, the law has already survied for 14 years, so even if the puritans and assholes in congress wanna shit on this, they might not have too much luck.

/class dismissed.

And on a personal level, I only don't smoke now because of job concerns, not out of fear of the law.

Lot more than pesky.  We'll see if it is revisited.  Of course it came down to ""could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial."  It's all about aggregation baby!

Anyone have any studies that include models that predict the short and long term affects on crime based on legalization?

No more prosecution of minor offenders vs. increase in say robberies by former street level dealers now out of income

i think i remember being shocked that O'Connor was on the other side for this? even if this is revisited, given the makeup of the court, i don't think it'll change; (although w/obama in office, less federal busts) i just don't see it ever being legal; states can do what they want, but if the feds can always come in and bust, then people won't feel completely free; it's so stupid.

Yes, some of my friends get the best stuff from CA--pay $100 for a prescription and go on a shopping spree :-)

[el_chode]

I'm not gonna quote only to keep the post from taking up an entire screen. But I'm not totally surpirised by O'Connor since it was her an Rehnquist that were the leading edge of putting the limit on federal power, even if it may offend their normal sensibilities.

I thought the majority's reasoning was flawed when it came to the aggregate. Small home-grown production would most likely result in a DECREASE in interstate commerce. Here, you're taking demand away from the black market. A small, permissible allotment of the homegrown fun would keep these people from trafficking it. It would reduce the demand of the product across state and international borders. It wouldn't eliminate it entirely, but I guess unless you're going to argue that even the decrease in interstate commerce (or even intrastate commerce) would amount to a substantial effect, like proving a negative, it could be within their grasp. Still, I find that a very tenuous stance.

[pawpaw]

Sheesh, you lawyers sure are a buzzkill...  ::)  ;D

[Penny Lane]

but o'connor got more and more pragmatic as she got older; yes, that is a stupid argument (about interstate commerce)

[ycartrob]

"Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions
predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth..." You got that
from "Work in Essex County," Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagiarize the whole book for me?

[megalicious]

if this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!

ahhh! i LOVE apple butter!
:D

[Penny Lane]

if this passes, I am buying stock in these 2 commodities ASAP!

ahhh! i LOVE apple butter!
:D

michael bolton clone!

[el_chode]

but o'connor got more and more pragmatic as she got older; yes, that is a stupid argument (about interstate commerce)

Ok true, and while they're both not without their faults (Kelo, for example). But at least insofar as the most recent decisions on the issue, those two were pretty reliable.