1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

Cannabis News

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by vtac, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. BigJr48

    BigJr48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    823
    Location:
    New York, N.Y.
  2. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
  3. Summer

    Summer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    You misunderstand. This is just to declassify cannabis as a schedule 1 drug @ the fed level & giving the states the right to classify it as they choose. The fed. gov't can't make/change state laws. If this comes to pass, interstate cannabis commerce will be allowed between legal states, but cannot cross state lines with any illegal state. For example, if FL becomes legal cannabis can't be transported over state lines if the surrounding states are illegal; Cali will be able to transport to NV & vice versa.

    Obviously, there are several huge political reasons for him to pass this legislation. Schumer has been my senator for the past 20 & I can assure you that very rarely has he done something just because it's the right thing to do or because the electorate wants it. But regardless of his self-serving motives, if he can bring this to pass, I will just say thank you. And I do thank him for all he's done for NY after 9/11. This said, I wish he'd disappear.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  4. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    That would work out well for states like California, Oregon and Washington state where I live. I will hope it passes.

    Edit
    Almost forgot about Nevada.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
    Whisper, BigJr48, macbill and 2 others like this.
  5. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
    Perhaps I did misunderstand, but I don’t think so.

    Yes, the bill in question can’t *force* the removal of state laws, due to the deluded notion of “states’ rights”...however, it’s a well-established principle that states cannot have laws that conflict with federal law. It is entirely possible, as I see it, for the law - removing cannabis as a controlled substance and opening it to general commerce - to be worded in a way that invalidates state laws that depend in part on the old federal prohibition stance. If states want to write their own laws, they could then produce bills that would pass muster among their *living* citizens, but laws reflecting the old drug-war excuses and pretexts should not survive a federal 180, even though they may. EG: 14th amendment trashed all state laws governing slaves; ditto state alcohol laws following the repeal of the Volstead amendment.

    I’m not saying they would necessarily fall on their own, but the fed has ways to get states in line.

    Schumer has *never* been my representative...he has never impressed me as a voice we need in Congress. If he can in fact clear away federal opposition to cannabis, then bravo and well-done to him. Otherwise, my opinion matches yours.
     
    macbill likes this.
  6. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    just like Canada the USA needs to drop UN drug law... Canada dropped UN and now entire Country legal... only way out is to drop UN influence in the Country... Fucking Pirates floating abroad running Drug wars
     
    His_Highness, Summer and macbill like this.
  7. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
    The UN is not responsible for our drug laws - to the contrary, the UN has always been the creature of the US government. That same government has been the driving force behind cannabis interdiction worldwide for at least the last 100 years.

    Further note on the Schumer descheduling bill and state laws: while some state laws prohibiting cannabis are older than the federal action, the Fed was never shy about pushing the states to adopt such laws, and even punishing them for not ‘cooperating’; to pretend the fed can have no role in rolling back the laws they urged on the states is to be blind toward our own internal politics on the matter.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
    Planck, j-bug, BigJr48 and 3 others like this.
  8. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    UN runs the drug war in the intrastate lines between American States... how else will American police be able to say - hey you with that plant points and Bang! bang you for touching plants !! where the hell is a constitutional allowance for American police to do that Shit? Pirates are doing it
     
  9. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
  10. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    the Evidence is Floating on the uncharted waters of the floating Elite. Pirates... coming to other Countries with their treaties ETC....
    look it up too, Canada had to drop UN drug treaties in order to legalize cannabis nationwide.
     
  11. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
    So that’s a ‘no’ on evidence...is that also your argument?
     
    Roth and Summer like this.
  12. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    I've got no argument... US constitiution ETC.... where in it where??? nowhere... UN treaties allow Drug law not our constitution.. i'm done with this.. antthr second of my life thinking about this Shit = Fuck that ... no more... onto the medical science man Fuck politics!!
     
    HighMtnSkier likes this.
  13. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
    Okay
     
    Summer likes this.
  14. Polarbearboy

    Polarbearboy Tokin' Away Since 1968

  15. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    It's right there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
    Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/
    Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
    The trippy thing is, the federal government's only Constitutional claim to authority of much of what it does that affects us directly has been approved because of that very clause. While the founders put the power in as a shield to the feds in protecting commerce between the states, the courts have made it a sword for the fed's power over...everything.

     
    C No Ego likes this.
  16. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    Shit! I wasn't going to reply anymore , damn... anyway- they can only regulate " the smoke of cannabis sativa L" by those laws... the word marijuana to control Hemp/cannabis via reference was created and means- the smoke of cannabis sativa L . literally that is the definition.
    marihuana is tobacco, an entirely different plant species that cannabis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae
    cannabis sis this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabaceae

    so right Away you know there is some Shady shit there
     
    BigJr48 likes this.
  17. cybrguy

    cybrguy I mean really, WTF

    Messages:
    7,300
    Hmmm... I seem to have landed accidentally in the FUCK YOU thread...

    Growing recreational pot at home might not be allowed after all under Illinois legalization proposal, sponsors say

    Chicago Tribune
    Just more than a week after introducing a bill to legalize recreational marijuana in Illinois, sponsors have begun retooling the measure to appease critics.

    In one of the most fundamental changes, sponsors say it is likely they will eliminate a provision to let all adult state residents grow up to five plants at home.

    A member of the leading cannabis advocacy group, Illinois NORML, said if that change is made, the group will have to reconsider whether to support the bill.

    But the change would address concerns from law enforcement that the homegrown provisions would make it difficult to find illegal growers.

    State Sen. Heather Steans and state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, who are sponsors of the measure, as well as state Rep. Toi Hutchinson, confirmed they were strongly considering limiting five homegrown plants to medical marijuana patients only to ensure their access to medicine.


    [​IMG]

    “We know we’re filing an amendment,” Steans said of the homegrown cutback. “I think that is likely.”

    Westchester police Chief Steve Stelter, president of the Illinois Chiefs of Police Association, welcomed the proposed change, saying it will help prevent illegal growing operations.

    “That would make a huge difference,” Stelter said.

    The chiefs would still have concerns about how to legally check to make sure medical marijuana growers limit themselves to five plants, but that is another matter.

    The executive director of the longtime cannabis activist group Illinois NORML, Dan Linn, said he would have to consult with his advisory board on how to react to such a change.

    “We’d have to look at whether we’re still able to support the legislation,” he said.

    NORML did support the legalization of marijuana in the state of Washington, which prohibits homegrown pot for the general population, but many other states do allow homegrown, Linn said.

    Tribune coverage: Marijuana in Illinois »

    “People say to pass the best bill you can and come back later to try and make it better,” Linn said. “But we’ve had significant problems with the (existing) medical cannabis program that we still have not been able to fix.”

    The change would come in an amendment to the Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act that sponsors hope to introduce in the next week or two. The timing is urgent, since lawmakers only have until May 31 to pass the bill in this legislative session. If approved, the measure would allow licensed dealers to sell cannabis beginning Jan. 1, 2020.

    Sponsors of the bill held months of meetings and negotiations with numerous stakeholders, including law enforcement, industry members and representatives of Gov. J.B. Pritzker. The parties have continued giving feedback of all sorts since the governor unveiled the proposal May 5.

    Sixty members of the House, a slight majority of the 118-member body, have signed a resolution asking to slow the legalization process. But Cassidy maintained that the bill is not in trouble.

    “We introduced it anticipating there will be a round of changes,” Cassidy said. “We’ve gotten a lot of good feedback.”

    The first hearing on the new legalization bill is set for Wednesday in Springfield.
    ------------------------------------
    While this would be a major disappointment, I would not want it to kill any of the bills support. Let's get it passed and work on changing it over time. Much easier to amend an existing bill than to get one passed...
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    Summer and His_Highness like this.
  18. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  19. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,862
    ClearBlueLou likes this.
  20. cybrguy

    cybrguy I mean really, WTF

    Messages:
    7,300
    Uh, are we getting a little ahead of ourselves?

    Illinois' marijuana market could rival Colorado's in the coming years, report finds

    Ally Marotti
    The cannabis industry in the U.S. has long been centered around states like Colorado and Oregon, but now, marijuana sales in Illinois and its neighboring states east of the Mississippi River are poised to rival those out west.

    The U.S. cannabis market is heading for massive growth, with sales that are expected to reach $22.7 billion by 2023, including $16.8 billion in recreational sales, according to a report out Tuesday from Chicago-based cannabis research firm Brightfield Group. Political support is growing around legalization efforts, and medical programs are expanding around the country.

    In Illinois, lawmakers are working to capture some of those potential recreational sales. They hope to pass a bill by the end of May that would legalize recreational use of the still federally illegal drug by January.

    Currently, the top five markets are west of the Mississippi, with Colorado, Oregon and Washington making up 42 percent of total U.S. sales, according to the Brightfield report. Sales in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and New York together make up 11 percent.

    By 2023, those market shares are expected to flip, Brightfield predicted, with the eastern states making up 34 percent of the market, and the western states dropping to 20 percent.


    [​IMG]

    “A lot of it comes down to population density,” said Bethany Gomez, managing director of Brightfield Group. “There’s much more opportunity in these areas that have larger populations and the market size can be larger … Illinois is going to be huge.”

    California is expected to remain on top, with one-fifth of total demand. But Illinois and Michigan are expected to rival Colorado and Nevada.

    States in the Midwest and along the East Coast are more populous than those out west, offering greater potential for long-term growth among cannabis companies, according to the report. Their marijuana programs have so far limited the number of licenses issued to operators. That has created a “fertile environment for scale and consolidation,” and added value for big-time investors, according to the report.

    Though some argue that the caps on licenses have kept out smaller operators, they have also given rise to about a dozen large, well-capitalized cannabis companies that operate in several states. Chicago-based companies like Green Thumb Industries, Grassroots and Cresco Labs are among the highest valued companies in the industry, according to the report.

    “As these big players establish themselves in the medical marijuana markets in the East, we can expect to see explosive growth from scale once these states become legal recreational markets,” according to the report.


    [​IMG]

    Illinois’ medical program has also expanded, adding more than 12,500 patients since February, when the state dropped fingerprint and background check requirements for patients, allowed people prescribed opioids access to medical marijuana, and started granting provisional access while medical card applications are reviewed.

    The report’s findings hinge on politics and other unforeseen factors. Lawmakers are already working to amend the Illinois bill, introduced earlier this month. Vermont remains the only state to legalize marijuana legislatively so far.
     
    BigJr48 and His_Highness like this.
  21. cybrguy

    cybrguy I mean really, WTF

    Messages:
    7,300
    As a Deadline for Legalizing Marijuana in Illinois Approaches, a New Poll Finds Strong Public Support
    According to the survey, three-fifth of voters think pot should be legal for recreational use.
    Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2019 1:00 PM

    [​IMG]

    Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and his allies in the state legislature have only one week left in the current session to pass a bill legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Whether they succeed will depend partly on whether legislators believe they have the support of most voters, and a recent poll indicates they do, reinforcing the results of an earlier survey.

    In the new poll, commissioned by Think Big Illinois and conducted by the Global Strategy Group in late April and early May with a sample of 802 registered voters, 60 percent of respondents said they supported "legalizing recreational marijuana, taxing it, and regulating it just like alcohol," while 35 percent opposed that policy. Those results are similar to the numbers from a March poll of 1,000 registered voters by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, which found that 66 percent favored "the legalization of recreational marijuana if taxed and regulated like alcohol." Given the statistical margins of error (plus or minus 3.5 and 3.1 percentage points, respectively), these findings are essentially the same.

    By contrast, a survey of 625 registered voters commissioned by the anti-pot group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and conducted in early May by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy found that 41 percent supported "legalizing commercial production, use and sale of marijuana for recreational use." Although several Illinois news outlets reported that the Mason-Dixon poll showed public support for legalization was slipping, it actually showed that support had risen by 78 percent since a similar SAM-sponsored poll in November 2017.

    The gap between the Mason-Dixon poll and the other two surveys illustrates how big an impact the wording of questions can have. Instead of asking voters whether or not they supported legalization, SAM presented them with four options: 1) "keep the current policy of decriminalization and medical marijuana," 2) "keep the current policy of decriminalization and medical marijuana but also allow for past misdemeanor marijuana convictions to be expunged," 3) "change the current policy of decriminalization by legalizing commercial production, use and sale of marijuana for recreational use," or 4) "make all marijuana use illegal."

    SAM argues that its preferred framing provides a more nuanced measure of public opinion. But presenting four options instead of two is bound to dilute support for recreational legalization, and it does not accurately reflect the decision confronting state legislators. SAM also misrepresented current law by telling respondents that "personal marijuana possession is already decriminalized in Illinois." In fact, possessing more than 10 grams of marijuana—about a third of an ounce, easily a personal-use amount—is still a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail for a first offense and a felony punishable by one to six years in prison for a second offense.

    Perhaps most important, SAM stripped the issue of relevant context by omitting any reference to alcohol or to regulation. The alcohol analogy makes marijuana legalization more logically appealing, while the mention of regulation is surely reassuring to many people.

    Even with those advantages, SAM's poll found that just 9 percent of voters thought marijuana should be completely illegal, down from 18 percent in the group's 2017 survey. That's a pretty decisive rejection of a policy that prevailed throughout the country from 1937, when Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act, until 1996, when California became the first state to allow medical use.
    ------------------------------------------------
    One week left to get this done or the chance of getting it next year are over. Starting to sweat...
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  22. cybrguy

    cybrguy I mean really, WTF

    Messages:
    7,300
    Lawmakers Not High on Marijuana
    The failure of a New Jersey marijuana legalization measure may spell trouble for legalization bills in other statehouses.

    By Claire Hansen Staff WriterMay 24, 2019, at 6:00 a.m.
    [​IMG]

    Legalization of recreational marijuana in New Jersey seemed all but inevitable earlier this year: The state's Democratic governor campaigned on the issue, polling showed the public was on board, and a measure was winding through the Democratic-controlled state legislature led by lawmakers who backed the effort.

    But in March, hours before a scheduled vote on the legalization bill, the measure was yanked for lack of support in the Senate. And despite tepid promises from top state lawmakers that they would continue to push for it, the state's Democratic Senate president declared the legislation dead last week.

    Instead, lawmakers will try to put the legalization question on the 2020 ballot where voters – not politicians – can make the call, he said.

    What New Jersey pledged to do – legalize recreational marijuana use and set up a regulated retail market through legislation – is unprecedented. Of the 10 states that have legalized cannabis, nine of them have done so at the ballot box. The other, Vermont, did so through legislation, but the measure did not outline a legal, regulated retail scheme.

    Editorial Cartoons on Marijuana
    [​IMG]
    Several other states with Democratic legislatures are attempting to pass recreational legalization measures and are running into roadblocks.

    In neighboring New York, a push for legalization has slowed, plagued by some of the politicking and in-fighting that surrounded the New Jersey bill. A legalization effort in New Mexico petered out before the legislative session ended in March and will be re-introduced next year. Illinois, which preemptively factored revenue from future marijuana sales into its budget, is trying to pass a sweeping legalization measure before the legislative session ends in two weeks, despite cries from critics that lawmakers are moving too fast. And a bill that would set up a retail market in Vermont still needs support from the state Senate and Republican governor.

    It remains to be seen if the collapse of the New Jersey bill foreshadows the failure of similar measures in other blue states, but the decision to move the effort from the statehouse to the ballot box, coupled with the fact that no state has yet legalized marijuana through legislation, begs the question: Is it possible in the current political climate to push legalization through a state legislature – or is the only viable path to recreational use and regulated sales through voters?

    "This is still not an easy issue to get through a legislature," says Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, a pro-legalization group that has worked with states on drug reform. "Even when it seems that conditions are very favorable, it is still an issue that many elected officials are cautious about."

    Among lawmakers who are generally supportive of marijuana legalization for adult recreational use, fierce debates continue over how exactly to do so, including disagreements over tax structure and provisions focused on social equality – debates informed by the issues faced by states that have already legalized through ballot referendums, like Colorado and California.

    In New Jersey, lawmakers squabbled over how to tax marijuana sales, arguing about what rate would be high enough to generate revenue but low enough to ward off an illicit, underground market.

    Also at issue was an expungement provision aimed at rectifying the harm caused by marijuana prohibition on communities of color. The New Jersey measure would have expunged the criminal records of people caught with up to 5 pounds of marijuana – an amount that many conservative and moderate lawmakers felt was too much. And, like other legislative priorities from education to taxes, the bill also fell victim to old fashioned political bad blood between the state's Senate president and its governor.

    "We're talking about replacing a decades-old, ingrained prohibition model ... It's not surprising that lawmakers are taking their time."

    In New York, politicians have, in one case, disagreed over a proposal to earmark a certain percentage of marijuana tax revenue for communities impacted by the war on drugs. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, proposed language that would give his office more control over those investments.

    But while the infighting over provisions within legalization efforts has slowed legislation in New Jersey, New York and other states, some advocates say the spats and delays are typical of those surrounding any large piece of legislation – and, therefore, actually demonstrate the progress the country has made on the issue of cannabis legalization.

    "We're talking about replacing a decades-old, ingrained prohibition model with a complex regulatory system and tax structure," says Mason Tvert, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization organization that has played a role in key legalization efforts. "It's not surprising that lawmakers are taking their time on this. … Legislatures were designed to be deliberative bodies that don't make change on a whim but do so through this structured process. That's what we're seeing play out."

    Tvert added that he believes it's no longer as much debate over whether marijuana should be legal but over what legalization looks like.

    "They're airing out all sorts of issues that previously were not being widely discussed among lawmakers or in the media, in particular these issues like equity," Tvert said.

    Despite debates around the specifics, Scotti says the measure in New Jersey simply didn't have enough votes in the Senate on the legalization question in general. Some lawmakers from minority communities are worried about how legalization would affect their constituencies, while other politicians are concerned about the impact on health and safety. Others are just morally opposed.

    A ballot referendum, then, is usually more expedient than legislation as public opinion is often way ahead of where lawmakers are, advocates say – and that pattern helps to explain why all states with both legalization laws and a retail market have done so through the ballot. Several polls show that support for legalization tops 60 percent nationwide.

    The gap between public opinion and legislative action also happened with medical marijuana, Scotti says. Despite high public support, it oftentimes took years for states to get medical marijuana programs on the books, and many did so through the ballot. Thirty-three states have medical marijuana programs, with California being the first to allow medical use in 1996.

    Electoral politics contribute to that lag, Scotti says. Driven by political concerns, several communities in New Jersey and New York have said they would opt out of a marijuana retail program, as many districts in California have done.

    [ READ: New Bill Removes Marijuana From Controlled Substances List ]

    "I think most elected officials care most about what people in their districts think," Scotti says. "You would well have a lot of elected officials, a lot of folks, who are hearing voices in opposition in their particular districts. It's just more complicated because you have all those local pieces when you move something through the legislature."

    But ballot referendums come with their own set of complications and can both allow more expansive legalization measures as well as necessitate more restrictive bills, depending on the state's referendum rules and its political landscape. Scotti says the number of states that allow for ballot measures on policies like cannabis legalization are dwindling.

    Still, advocates say that, despite recent challenges to legalization efforts, there's progress being made. Though the legalization measure has been tossed by New Jersey, a conviction-expungement measure and a medical marijuana expansion are moving through the legislature.

    "I don't want to downplay the frustration that people have," Tvert says. "But at the same time, it's pretty remarkable. … The fact that it took a state, like, three years of deliberation to develop this law is going to seem like it was a relatively quick thing."
     
  23. hans solo

    hans solo Left coast Canada

    Messages:
    348
  24. ClearBlueLou

    ClearBlueLou unbearably light in the being....

    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    the Old Confederacy
    Putting my shoulder to passage of the Schumer bill: it would instantly (IMO) take the wind out of the sails of state and local restrictions, and make existing state efforts in CA, CO, WA painfully unnecessary.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t or won’t support an improved legal-cultural environment anywhere
     
    cybrguy, His_Highness and BigJr48 like this.
  25. hans solo

    hans solo Left coast Canada

    Messages:
    348

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors