grokit
well-worn member
You think it was better under dubya?
It's only for the shorter breaks anyways:
"Justice Breyer said such appointments generally remained permissible so long as they were made during breaks of 10 or more days."
Cannabis News
- Thread starter vtac
- Start date
It's only for the shorter breaks anyways:
"Justice Breyer said such appointments generally remained permissible so long as they were made during breaks of 10 or more days."
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
The government functioned because the people out of power didn't find it necessary to fuck everything up for fear the President might accomplish something. The President was an idiot, but the rest of govt was functional. Congress didn't filibuster everything in an effort to stop even their own shit.
This is OT and I'm stopping here.
I'm pretty confident that the move towards legalization is unstoppable at this point, but it may have to be over the dead bodies of some of the people who insist that MJ is a dangerous drug. Facts don't influence those kind of politicians. It is ideology all day every day. Obama doesn't love the idea of legalization, but he knows it has to happen and he won't try to stop it. That's the best we can do for now.
I think there is a decent chance that the federal prohibitions will be dropped under Hillary's watch. At LEAST sched 1, but maybe the whole ball of shit.
This is OT and I'm stopping here.
I'm pretty confident that the move towards legalization is unstoppable at this point, but it may have to be over the dead bodies of some of the people who insist that MJ is a dangerous drug. Facts don't influence those kind of politicians. It is ideology all day every day. Obama doesn't love the idea of legalization, but he knows it has to happen and he won't try to stop it. That's the best we can do for now.
I think there is a decent chance that the federal prohibitions will be dropped under Hillary's watch. At LEAST sched 1, but maybe the whole ball of shit.
1_gr8_underdog
Trapped in the Astral Planes Back from the dead
Illinois House moves toward decriminalizing marijuana possession
Illinois House approved Thursday.
Low-level cannabis possession would go from a crime with fines of up to $2,500 and up to a year in jail to be more like a traffic ticket: no court time and a fine of up to $125. The measure would apply to people caught with 15 grams or less, the equivalent of about 25 cigarette-size joints.
What's behind Anita Alvarez's shift on drugs
Sponsoring Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, said the measure wouldn't override laws in cities like Chicago that already have fines in place for marijuana possession but is aimed at creating a uniform penalty throughout the state and eliminating the option for police to arrest people carrying small amounts of pot.
"We currently have a patchwork of local ordinances where there is the possibility of getting a ticket but not a given that you'll get a ticket, so it's an open question where you go whether you're going to get arrested or get a ticket," Cassidy said. "That creates a system whereby it depends on where you live, and what you look like, and unfortunately more often than not, it is folks who are black and brown who are being arrested, who are being pulled off the streets, pulled away from their jobs and their families and put into our jails and prisons."
Alvarez proposes steering minor drug offenders to treatment
The House bill comes days after Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez announced her office would stop prosecuting low-level marijuana possession cases for people with fewer than three arrests or citations. It also follows a measure enacted by Chicago in 2012 that allowed police to issue tickets of $250 to $500 for someone caught with 15 grams or less of marijuana.
The proposal, sent to the Senate on a 62-53 vote, drew support from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Republican Rep. Ron Sandack of Downers Grove said the legislation fits in with Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner's goal of reducing the number of adults and juveniles sent to jail by 25 percent over 10 years.
"I think police have been bogged down with petty possession crimes," Sandack said. "I think courts have been bogged down with petty possession crimes. These people, they're not dealers. They have no intent to sell."
Others opposed a provision in the bill that would prevent drivers who test positive for small traces of marijuana from being charged with driving under the influence.
Illinois lawmakers consider bills to fight drug abuse
"It's like a slap on the wrist. There's no penalty," said Rep. Keith Wheeler, R-Oswego. "The effect of the bill, in some people's minds, is that marijuana is a less offensive drug than alcohol in Illinois. That concerns me."
But advocates argue that because marijuana can stay in a person's system for a longer period of time than alcohol, it's possible someone could be charged with a DUI even if he or she isn't showing signs of impairment.
Supporters including Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, the Illinois Bar Association and the Illinois Office of the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor said the measure would help relieve an overburdened court system.
Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ecriminalization-met-0424-20150423-story.html
Illinois House approved Thursday.
Low-level cannabis possession would go from a crime with fines of up to $2,500 and up to a year in jail to be more like a traffic ticket: no court time and a fine of up to $125. The measure would apply to people caught with 15 grams or less, the equivalent of about 25 cigarette-size joints.
What's behind Anita Alvarez's shift on drugs
Sponsoring Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, said the measure wouldn't override laws in cities like Chicago that already have fines in place for marijuana possession but is aimed at creating a uniform penalty throughout the state and eliminating the option for police to arrest people carrying small amounts of pot.
"We currently have a patchwork of local ordinances where there is the possibility of getting a ticket but not a given that you'll get a ticket, so it's an open question where you go whether you're going to get arrested or get a ticket," Cassidy said. "That creates a system whereby it depends on where you live, and what you look like, and unfortunately more often than not, it is folks who are black and brown who are being arrested, who are being pulled off the streets, pulled away from their jobs and their families and put into our jails and prisons."
Alvarez proposes steering minor drug offenders to treatment
The House bill comes days after Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez announced her office would stop prosecuting low-level marijuana possession cases for people with fewer than three arrests or citations. It also follows a measure enacted by Chicago in 2012 that allowed police to issue tickets of $250 to $500 for someone caught with 15 grams or less of marijuana.
The proposal, sent to the Senate on a 62-53 vote, drew support from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Republican Rep. Ron Sandack of Downers Grove said the legislation fits in with Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner's goal of reducing the number of adults and juveniles sent to jail by 25 percent over 10 years.
"I think police have been bogged down with petty possession crimes," Sandack said. "I think courts have been bogged down with petty possession crimes. These people, they're not dealers. They have no intent to sell."
Others opposed a provision in the bill that would prevent drivers who test positive for small traces of marijuana from being charged with driving under the influence.
Illinois lawmakers consider bills to fight drug abuse
"It's like a slap on the wrist. There's no penalty," said Rep. Keith Wheeler, R-Oswego. "The effect of the bill, in some people's minds, is that marijuana is a less offensive drug than alcohol in Illinois. That concerns me."
But advocates argue that because marijuana can stay in a person's system for a longer period of time than alcohol, it's possible someone could be charged with a DUI even if he or she isn't showing signs of impairment.
Supporters including Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, the Illinois Bar Association and the Illinois Office of the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor said the measure would help relieve an overburdened court system.
Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ecriminalization-met-0424-20150423-story.html
howie105
Well-Known Member
This having to wait for the locals and state governments to do the job of patching together reasonable state and regional drug laws is not good. National policy requires national leadership which is sadly lacking on this matter, I suspect we are being held captive because of the 2016 election.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Maybe, but just like liquor laws this WILL be left up to the states. The only thing we need from the fed is to change the DEA classification of schedule 1. Then the states can do what they want and the banks will do business with the industry. Then it becomes a local argument.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I think you're right about being held hostage until the 2016 election. A lot of our law makers are afraid to make a stand on cannabis. It's up to the Feds to show guidance and they are not doing it. I'm going to be pissed if we can't get anything done with the Obama admistration with changing the classification on cannabis before he leaves office.
Who knows what president we will have to deal with in 2016.
Some of the older politicians will have to retire or die before we get cannabis reclassified possibly.
Sometimes progress marches at a snails pace.
Who knows what president we will have to deal with in 2016.
Some of the older politicians will have to retire or die before we get cannabis reclassified possibly.
Sometimes progress marches at a snails pace.
Last edited:
howie105
Well-Known Member
As long as the fed has a policy of suppression at the national level growers, vendors and users are still open to prosecution for interstate crimes. That could be on top of whatever some local hard ass decides to pop on top according to local laws as well. Better for all concerned to have one law of the land which protects all.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Nothing will change until the classification is changed, and the very definition of schedule 1 belies MJ falling under it. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any honest person say there is no medicinal value. It has been known for millennia. It is only politics.
If Obama doesn't do it, surely Hillary will. After all, Bill wants to inhale it this time, since Barack told him that was the point.
And, btw, it is rec legal in DC.
If Obama doesn't do it, surely Hillary will. After all, Bill wants to inhale it this time, since Barack told him that was the point.
And, btw, it is rec legal in DC.
Last edited:
howie105
Well-Known Member
Reclassifying marijuana to a lower class of narcotic is not an answer unto itself. Till you have actual legalization at the federal level you will always be susceptible to prosecution and internment regardless of local policy.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Sched 1 is the dam in the river of legalization AND acceptance. Once that dam is broken nothing will stop it's forward progress in medicinal and rec use but saturation. And it will especially allow unfettered research ON ITS BENEFITS rather than just its negative aspects. That is already proving to be true where it IS legal.
RUDE BOY
Space is the Place
Actually the drinking age where I live used to be 18, now due to federal regulations enacted in the early '80s that have to do with funding for highways and the interstate road system it's 21.
... So the state doesn't always really have the final say on as much policy as you may believe.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
18 is too young for the drinking age anyways. It used to be 18 on Guam until a drunken Navy squid, late back to base, speeding and still hung over and drunk, hit and killed my brother in law on his bicycle. The age is now 21 on Guam and the legislation that did it bears his name.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I didn't know the Fed overruled drinking age decisions now. When I was a kid my state was 21 (and my town was dry) and then when I was legal it went to 18 (and my town got wet), and then a dozen years later they reconsidered and made it 21 again. I personally have no problem with 21 and agree that the 18 yr olds I know are too young, but the truth is that there is no magic to the age of 21. There are probably more folks out there that shouldn't drink, then folks who should. Of any age.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
True. The strategy is called "delayed initiation" and though not perfect it works much better than prohibition.
RUDE BOY
Space is the Place
I agree with 18 being to young, i kind of think 21 isn't old enough anymore.
Little known and overlooked fact in Florida is that active military here can drink regardless of age but bar owners aren't required to oblige. I know someone local that was fighting for the "all active military regardless of age should be allowed to drink" idea before they uncovered the old law that said they actually could.
We still have many old Laws/ regulations that were never actually stricken from the law books here like if your of age and marry a minor you can take 'em with you to drink at a 'tavern' that only sells beer and wine but not a "Bar" that serves liquor although I don't know of a tavern or bar owner that'll serve anyone who they know is under 21 regardless of whether they're aware of these old laws or not.
Little known and overlooked fact in Florida is that active military here can drink regardless of age but bar owners aren't required to oblige. I know someone local that was fighting for the "all active military regardless of age should be allowed to drink" idea before they uncovered the old law that said they actually could.
We still have many old Laws/ regulations that were never actually stricken from the law books here like if your of age and marry a minor you can take 'em with you to drink at a 'tavern' that only sells beer and wine but not a "Bar" that serves liquor although I don't know of a tavern or bar owner that'll serve anyone who they know is under 21 regardless of whether they're aware of these old laws or not.
Last edited:
olivianewtonjohn
Well-Known Member
Doesnt the data show the opposite? On average countries with lower drinking limits have less problems? At leasts that what I always thought. In alot of those countries people are surrounded by alcohol at a young age so when they finally can drink its not such a big deal. VS here we have people turning 21 and taking 21 shots to celebrate
Thats at least what I thought.
Thats at least what I thought.
grokit
well-worn member
Technically they're not, they're just (probably illegally) withholding highway funding.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Interesting opinion piece in WA Post on the idea of non-profit pot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...e-legal-but-it-shouldnt-be-sold-for-a-profit/
grokit
well-worn member
I think this is what's happening in alaska, as they just allowed 24 plants per household. In my fertile imagination, this is because some cruise ship company called the state tourism board and said that their cruise ship customer demographic was uncomfortable with a bunch of pot shops everywhere. Now that the baby boomers are aging this type of argument should go away on its own. Still, if everybody can have 24 plants, it keeps mj in the private sector much like the black market did -- but with less of a black market.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
VA Doctors Still Can't Recommend Medical Marijuana To Veterans »
Matt Ferner | April 30, 2015 at 09:59 PM
The House of Representatives on Thursday killed a bipartisan amendment that would have increased military veterans' access to medical marijuana. The amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill failed 213-210, with Republicans mostly opposed and most Democrats in favor. The measure would have blocked the Department of Veterans Affairs from spending money enforcing a ban on VA doctors discussing medical marijuana with their patients. A similar amendment narrowly failed on the House floor last year. “While it’s ...
The vote was really close 213 - 210. These guys lay their lives on the line for their country and this is what our lawmakers decided. A real fuck you from the government to our people in the military.
Hopefully this can be voted again when we have a more progressive U.S legislature.
EDIT
A lot of ignorance and close mindedness.
Matt Ferner | April 30, 2015 at 09:59 PM
The House of Representatives on Thursday killed a bipartisan amendment that would have increased military veterans' access to medical marijuana. The amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill failed 213-210, with Republicans mostly opposed and most Democrats in favor. The measure would have blocked the Department of Veterans Affairs from spending money enforcing a ban on VA doctors discussing medical marijuana with their patients. A similar amendment narrowly failed on the House floor last year. “While it’s ...
The vote was really close 213 - 210. These guys lay their lives on the line for their country and this is what our lawmakers decided. A real fuck you from the government to our people in the military.
Hopefully this can be voted again when we have a more progressive U.S legislature.
EDIT
A lot of ignorance and close mindedness.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
Gunky
Well-Known Member
A real fuck you from the Republicans in government to our people in the military.