Stoners rejoice (almost)

[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

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.
:-)

I agree PL.  Unless there is a federal statutory change, I don't see any different interpretation of the Commerce Clause.  Ahh memories of Wickard v. Filburn

[tomEisenbraun]

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-)

In my opinion, this is why it should be legal.  Here is a person that says either way, consumption will not increase.  It makes the most sense.  Tax the shit out of it, and run to the bank.  Anyone know a legislator?  Tell them this should be in the next bill to stimulate the economy.  There is more money underground buying pot than being used in the US on a daily basis right now.

If marijuana were to be legalized, it's consumption would increase greatly. There would be smoking bars, there would be stores, there would be advertisements, different brands and potencies, etc... Can you imagine if weed was available at any party and it wasn't illegal? Come on, consumption would sky rocket!

The greatest deterrent to marijuana use is that it's illegal. You lift that restraint, have the government's permission, and the number of smokers would increase.

Do you think people would still drive the speed limit if all of a sudden there was no speed limit? No. The number of people who would drive the old limits would dwindle in comparison to those who would drive faster.

Do you know how many people would drive UNDER the speed limit if they legalized weed? ;D

;D