excuse me, but COLORADO JUST LEGALIZED WEED COLORADO JUST LEGALIZED WEED COLORADO JUST LEGALIZED WEE

Swiffness!Swiffness! Posts: 7,057 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 2012 in The Social Lounge
The Rocky Mountain High just got a whole lot higher. On Tuesday night, Amendment 64 -- the measure which sought the legalization of marijuana for recreational use by adults -- was passed by Colorado voters, making Colorado the first state to end marijuana prohibition in the United States.

IN OUR FUCKIN LIFETIME YO, NIGGA I'M MOVIN
GreenCapitalist90kingblaze84Wild SelfDMIcarnalesflows515-Slim-
«13

Replies

  • ex-soldierex-soldier Posts: 632 ✭✭✭✭
    Washington State also.... Seattle just became a little more cloudy.
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 8,805 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)
  • d.greend.green Posts: 7,009 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I need to move out west. I like how they think out there.
    kingblaze84
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,850 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    lol congrats.

    like some of us have said many times before, the criminalization of marijauna is absolutely ridiculous and for so many reasons.
  • Black_SamsonBlack_Samson Can I Fuck It? Im Gonna Fuck It... Posts: 42,402 Regulator
    This is very good news.
    Watch how much money these states finna rake in.
  • Black_SamsonBlack_Samson Can I Fuck It? Im Gonna Fuck It... Posts: 42,402 Regulator
    Yo... This sets a legal precedent as well. It's gon get real interesting as far as law suits and pushing for Mmj.
  • Swiffness!Swiffness! Posts: 7,057 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)

    What can they do? You could theoretically transfer more Fed agents in, but State & Local police make literally 99% of all the weed arrests and there's less than 6,000 DEA agents.
    Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

    Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

    While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

    The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle, their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 8,805 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)

    What can they do? You could theoretically transfer more Fed agents in, but State & Local police make literally 99% of all the weed arrests and there's less than 6,000 DEA agents.
    Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

    Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

    While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

    The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle, their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m

    The feds cannot suppress marijuana completely, but they still have the power to shut down any business involved in selling weed, something the feds have been doing more and more over the past 4 years. That's enough to spook many people from setting up medical marijuana shops in the country, word to California. Until the federal govt stops being a bunch of fucking pricks on this issue, marijuana shops are still gona be in fear and won't create the amount of jobs that could be created if there was a pro-marijuana govt around. Or at least a non-intervening one
  • Oya_HusbandOya_Husband God King Posts: 14,833 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Will not be going to Colorado nor Washington state. Freely allowing drug users is affecting our moral and ability to make rational and logical decisions. Sorry, but if those become a black oasis, than we are DONE.
    GreenCapitalist90FuriousOnePlutarchkingblaze84ROZAYTABERNACLEDMTxTHCStewinfamous114Katsoul rattlerCopperSwiffness!
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Besides the weed, those are actually some qualify places to live.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2012
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)

    What can they do? You could theoretically transfer more Fed agents in, but State & Local police make literally 99% of all the weed arrests and there's less than 6,000 DEA agents.
    Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

    Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

    While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

    The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle, their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m

    The feds cannot suppress marijuana completely, but they still have the power to shut down any business involved in selling weed, something the feds have been doing more and more over the past 4 years. That's enough to spook many people from setting up medical marijuana shops in the country, word to California. Until the federal govt stops being a bunch of fucking pricks on this issue, marijuana shops are still gona be in fear and won't create the amount of jobs that could be created if there was a pro-marijuana govt around. Or at least a non-intervening one

    That's medical marijuana though. legal weed is another story. There is nothing stopping Obama from making it legal or at least stepping aside. He's victorious so getting votes shouldn't be an excuse.
  • nj2089nj2089 Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Will not be going to Colorado nor Washington state. Freely allowing drug users is affecting our moral and ability to make rational and logical decisions. Sorry, but if those become a black oasis, than we are DONE.

    Shhhaaaadddup
    kingblaze84KatOya_Husband
  • Black_SamsonBlack_Samson Can I Fuck It? Im Gonna Fuck It... Posts: 42,402 Regulator
    now if we can just get all that weird shit to stop happening out there...
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 8,805 ✭✭✭✭✭
    now if we can just get all that weird shit to stop happening out there...

    God bless that sexy snow bunny in your sig.....now that I'm no longer distracted, what weird shit are you talking about? The shootings in Colorado?
    Black_Samson
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 8,805 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)

    What can they do? You could theoretically transfer more Fed agents in, but State & Local police make literally 99% of all the weed arrests and there's less than 6,000 DEA agents.
    Marijuana will still be prohibited under federal law. But contrary to an argument made by opponents of Proposition 19, the California legalization initiative that lost by five percentage points in 2010, that does not mean the Supremacy Clause makes these measures unconstitutional. As Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars note in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, "The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

    Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). "The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

    While the feds certainly can make trouble for any state that dares to legalize pot, there is a practical limit to what they can accomplish on their own. According to the FBI, there were about 750,000 marijuana arrests nationwide last year, the vast majority for possession. State and local police departments were responsible for something like 99 percent of those arrests. It simply is not feasible for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—which has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to about 765,000 sworn personnel employed by state and local law enforcement agencies—to bust a significant percentage of people who grow pot for themselves and their friends (as Colorado’s initiative allows), let alone people who possess it for recreational use.

    The DEA can raid state-legal pot shops, as it has done with medical marijuana dispensaries, but the number of potential targets will be considerably larger once the market officially expands to include recreational users. The Justice Department can use asset forfeiture as an intimidation tactic against landlords and threaten banks that accept deposits from pot businesses with money laundering charges. The Internal Revenue Service can make life difficult for pot sellers by disallowing their business expenses (but not, thanks to a tax law wrinkle, their "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of buying marijuana). The feds could even threaten state regulators with prosecution for handling marijuana or facilitating the trade, although that seems less likely, since it would provoke a direct confrontation with state officials. (Washington's initiative seeks to minimize this risk by assigning the task of testing marijuana for regulatory purposes to private, state-approved laboratories.) The one thing federal drug warriors cannot do, judging from their track record even when they have the full cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies, is suppress the business entirely.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m

    The feds cannot suppress marijuana completely, but they still have the power to shut down any business involved in selling weed, something the feds have been doing more and more over the past 4 years. That's enough to spook many people from setting up medical marijuana shops in the country, word to California. Until the federal govt stops being a bunch of fucking pricks on this issue, marijuana shops are still gona be in fear and won't create the amount of jobs that could be created if there was a pro-marijuana govt around. Or at least a non-intervening one

    That's medical marijuana though. legal weed is another story. There is nothing stopping Obama from making it legal or at least stepping aside. He's victorious so getting votes shouldn't be an excuse.

    Yeah man, let's hope Obama can see this. His base for the most part supports legalizing it, and most Americans by far now support at a minimum, medical marijuana. Obama's stubbornness on this issue led me to vote 3rd party, but I'll gain respect for him if he stops being a fucking asshole on this issue. There are too many jobs to be created.
    Soloman_The_Wise
  • ROZAYTABERNACLEROZAYTABERNACLE Posts: 16,755 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's a step in the right direction. Hopefully it doesn't take until all 48 other states have legalized it for the federal gov to legalize it
    DMTxTHC
  • DMTxTHCDMTxTHC Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I got my fingers crossed hoping NY and NC are some of the next states to follow suit..
    kingblaze84
  • Supreme_GentlemanSupreme_Gentleman #RapeCulture Posts: 19,308 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,641 Regulator
    it's nice and all, but until you don't have overriding federal laws, i'm not sure what it means
    Beautiful, I will seriously consider moving to Colorado or Washington in the future. Now let's see if the federal govt will still crack down on this (one of the reasons I voted Gary Johnson president tonight)
    Gary Johnson: bringing together the presidential votes of janklow and kingblaze84 since 2012
    kingblaze84
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.