The most important part of this to me is that it generates a huge amount of precedent for the Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Guatemala that are considering legalization. The United States has used its global influence to push drug prohibition in other countries -- see for instance http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannab... -- and with these victories -- even if they prove to be merely nominal -- the people of Latin America can see that prohibition is crumbling.
There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the real victory here.
That is so right. The "war on drugs" is not simply some stupid wasteful boondoggle; it is truly a heinous crime against humanity.
Some folks scoff when they hear a statement like that, but it really is true. Not because it makes it (slightly) harder for me to buy weed in San Francisco, but because of the very real and devastating effects that it has on people outside the US. People who are rarely, if ever, covered by the mainstream media.
It certainly seems like this is the tipping point. Overall national support for decriminalization is at just over 50%. Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization.
I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.
Agreed, though I must admit to being slightly concerned about the potential increase in utterly tedious stoners banging on about Cheech and Chong movies.
Alcohol prohibition in the United States underwent a similar process. New York legalized alcohol, while it was still prohibited by federal law. Eventually, enough states had stopped arresting and prosecuting people for alcohol that it was not feasible to continue federal prohibition.
Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
What was the federal-state-local funding model like then? I know most municipalities continue to depend on federal funding, and I can see the US government using this (I recall a similar thing a few years ago around legal drinking ages)
> When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
Maybe true, but unfortunately there have been instances relating to medicinal usage where local enforcement followed federal instead of their state law.
In unrelated news, doctors announced unprecedented drops in the number of 20-40 year olds suffering from migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and insomnia.
Interestingly enough, Washington State's similar initiative, Initiative 502, passed as well tonight. It would seem momentum is growing around legalization. How the federal government via the DEA and DOJ ultimately handle these two victories for legalization proponents may be telling in regard to how close a national concensus is.
I'm actually optimistic about civil liberties in this country. Didn't see that coming. Two states legalized marijuana and possibly four more states have approved gay marriage (btw, I rarely smoke and I'm not gay).
Gotta wonder, now that Obama is a second term president and doesn't have to think about re-election, whether we could see some of this stuff start to happen at the federal level...
Agreed. In Minnesota, the Republican party overplayed their hand by trying to pass an amendment against gay marriage and another requiring voter ID. The amendments were defeated and it was arguably one of the biggest reasons for heavy republican losses in the state.
Provided this actually happens (ie: it doesn't get sabotaged by the DEA), I expect Colorado's tourist numbers and college applications will compete for the largest increase next year.
Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.
Prohibition is clearly stupid and has caused very great harm. Other people have mentioned the death and destruction in Mexico as one example. I am strongly pro legalisation.
But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self-medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the ability to do better science.)
Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.
Nicotine & Alcohol both cause mental and physiological illnesses — a lot of them actually. Marijuana can be linked to certain types of psychosis, depending on which study you read.
It's a risk. Personally, I favour the Norwegian model: tax it highly, put the tax gains into the public health sector. Everybody wins.
I have nothing to offer but what I've heard and anecdotal experience. People often get "mentally ill" from marijuana because it can produce mild feelings of paranoia. Add to that a country which will arrest you for it. And forcing people to buy it illegally from armed criminals, and you'll surely get people who crack under the pressure. I'm not saying that it's total bunk that marijuana causes mental problems, but I think a lot of it is attributable to its illegality.
The purpose of prohibition was to destroy local, independant breweries and distillers, so that large conglomerates would be able to dominate the very lucrative alcohol industry once it was re-legalized.
As an outsider, I'm not sure I understand what this means. Can someone explain how this will work in practice? in the sense that this doesn't over-rule federal laws, and presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?
"Can someone explain how this will work in practice?"
Read the law.
"presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?"
The feds have said that they aren't going to target individuals who follow state law. As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently left up to each local DA. There are some rough guidelines the feds have put out saying that if you follow certain rules (as a grower or dispensary owner) then you won't be arrested, but it's up to each DA as to whether or not to honor those guidelines.
The federal government has already accepted that marijuana is going to become legal, but they're trying to make it happen in an orderly way. Insiders generally predict federal legalization (or at least rescheduling) in 3-5 years. That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political, economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned.
I think they have just prioritized marijuana busts below other work. It made local news when the regional head of the DEA said that marijuana had no medical value and that it was still illegal federally. That said they certainly have a lot of targets. You just need to pick up any local alternative newspaper to find ads for medical marijuana.
So I guess that means that legal battles over weed will just be over local issues such as regulations and zoning. Before medical marijuana was legal in Colorado I used to see a fair number of advertisements for head shops selling equipment for tobacco. Afterwards, I saw a lot of ads for medical marijuana and some for clinics specializing in treating with medical marijuana. I don't personally smoke weed, but I have had the impression that it was easy to get legally. Now I expect that the legal situation will be complicated to navigate for business owners for awhile. But I think that weed will be even easier to get for the general public, and I don't believe the DEA would go after any customer.
Section 903 of the Controlled Substances Act has a "positive conflict" clause. I haven't heard enough about this, but legalization activists in Washington say it means that federal law will only override state law if the state law forces people to do something illegal.[1]
Living in Colorado, I voted yes on Amendment 64. This was mostly because I think the hemp and 'recreation' industries will pull in a lot of tax revenue (of which, the first $40 million will be put directly into a public schools fund for the state), as well as potential job growth.
I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be considered 'dispensaries'?
It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp based industry get started up at all.
The city-level restrictions seem fair. Without some sort of "escape valve" to let places that are predominately opposed opt out, I suspect you'd get a lot of backlash and you might see a reversal. Better to let some cities lead and others sit the first round out ... although they'll probably be losing some valuable first-mover tourist dollar advantages in doing so.
Cities can do whatever they want. If you look at the distribution of dispensaries in the Bay Area, they are in SF, Oakland, San Jose, and a few other cities but none in the stretch between South SF and SJ
I recall that the measure specifically allows for municipalities to outlaw sale and production within their jurisdiction, and I imagine many will do so. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
This is all well and good, but at this point there's no guarantee that the federal government won't slap it down. My limited understanding of the law suggests there are two avenues for the federal government to do so:
I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]
Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]
II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]
A quick example of how the ICC could be applied:
If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.
I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.
The Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago. They said that Congress can regulate home-grown marijuana (even though they are only constitutionally allowed to regulate interstate commerce) because the presence of homegrown marijuana affects supply/demand in the interstate market for it:
Good news! Let farmers grow it and people at home. Sell it, tax it, allow people to buy it in a safe environment instead from dealers that try to get people hooked on other crap. This makes weed less of a gateway drug and more a greatway drug.
I think they are plenty of good arguments for legalizing marijuana - however, things like this tend to make me think twice about it:
"In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.”
Are there any other instances of this kind of issue to compare this against and see how it's going to play out. I'm trying to think of other instances where something was illegal at the federal level, and states have made that legal?
The amendment will allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of the drug at specially regulated retail stores.
I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments, but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person?
And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even corporations to get their hands on these records?
I'm guessing -- and this is purely a guess (ie I haven't read the law) -- that the 1oz limit is likely per transaction / per visit. Just like when a supermarket says "limit 5 per customer" for an item on sale. If you REALLY want more you can go back later/tomorrow/etc.
This was likely put in the language of the law to emphasize that this is for personal use and not for commercial distribution.
I am having a hard time understanding the reasons for support here in HN so please help me out. A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it? Suppose that it is a more powerful drug that is very hazardous to a person exist. Doesn't that speaks to the same situation? Should we legalize that as well?
I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.
With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of alcohol addiction, etc...
I'am curious how health insurace companies will react. Would they charge more from people who take marijuana? Would it be legal for them to investigate if someone is cannabies smoker?
[+] [-] scythe|13 years ago|reply
There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the real victory here.
[+] [-] veidr|13 years ago|reply
Some folks scoff when they hear a statement like that, but it really is true. Not because it makes it (slightly) harder for me to buy weed in San Francisco, but because of the very real and devastating effects that it has on people outside the US. People who are rarely, if ever, covered by the mainstream media.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.
[+] [-] moistgorilla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MartinCron|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osiris|13 years ago|reply
Disclosure: I live in Colorado and voted for the amendment.
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pinchyfingers|13 years ago|reply
Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
[+] [-] bdcravens|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detst|13 years ago|reply
Maybe true, but unfortunately there have been instances relating to medicinal usage where local enforcement followed federal instead of their state law.
[+] [-] trotsky|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] llambda|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detst|13 years ago|reply
Let's keep this going.
[+] [-] Nursie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 46Bit|13 years ago|reply
Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.
[+] [-] mahmud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self-medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the ability to do better science.)
Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.
[+] [-] adimitrov|13 years ago|reply
It's a risk. Personally, I favour the Norwegian model: tax it highly, put the tax gains into the public health sector. Everybody wins.
[+] [-] endlessvoid94|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickgzill|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blhack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|13 years ago|reply
Read the law.
"presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?"
The feds have said that they aren't going to target individuals who follow state law. As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently left up to each local DA. There are some rough guidelines the feds have put out saying that if you follow certain rules (as a grower or dispensary owner) then you won't be arrested, but it's up to each DA as to whether or not to honor those guidelines.
The federal government has already accepted that marijuana is going to become legal, but they're trying to make it happen in an orderly way. Insiders generally predict federal legalization (or at least rescheduling) in 3-5 years. That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political, economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned.
[+] [-] chris11|13 years ago|reply
So I guess that means that legal battles over weed will just be over local issues such as regulations and zoning. Before medical marijuana was legal in Colorado I used to see a fair number of advertisements for head shops selling equipment for tobacco. Afterwards, I saw a lot of ads for medical marijuana and some for clinics specializing in treating with medical marijuana. I don't personally smoke weed, but I have had the impression that it was easy to get legally. Now I expect that the legal situation will be complicated to navigate for business owners for awhile. But I think that weed will be even easier to get for the general public, and I don't believe the DEA would go after any customer.
[+] [-] zachrose|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I...
[+] [-] stormbeta|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacoblyles|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tubbzor|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be considered 'dispensaries'?
It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp based industry get started up at all.
[+] [-] Kadin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbiep|13 years ago|reply
I mean, of course it has to be used for something, and most models I hear of have the revenue being used for treatment or medical programs.
[+] [-] akiselev|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukifer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stinky613|13 years ago|reply
I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]
Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]
II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]
A quick example of how the ICC could be applied: If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.
I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
[2]http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-m...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
[+] [-] bsimpson|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Baffling logic, but I wouldn't be optimistic for the federal authorities to be too foregiving here.
[+] [-] dutchbrit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suby|13 years ago|reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalizat...
[+] [-] signifiers|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|13 years ago|reply
"In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-dri...
[+] [-] seanalltogether|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pioul|13 years ago|reply
I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments, but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person?
And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even corporations to get their hands on these records?
[+] [-] nlh|13 years ago|reply
This was likely put in the language of the law to emphasize that this is for personal use and not for commercial distribution.
[+] [-] Inebas|13 years ago|reply
I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.
With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of alcohol addiction, etc...
[+] [-] regularfry|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doctoboggan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SenorWilson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piokoch|13 years ago|reply