A lot of what can be said has already been said. However, I would like to share a piece of joy- I'm in one of the pictures in this article. It feels great.
Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
171–180 of 218 posts
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking not about "anything". We're talking about specific thing where the law enforcement enforces arbitrary prohibition against the will of the same people they pretend to protect. Comparing this to Jim Crow laws makes no sense - Jim Crow laws limited people's rights, legalization expands people's rights. Jim Crow laws was an arbitrary governmental restriction, legalization removes the arbitrary governmental…
> Jim Crow laws limited people's rights, legalization expands people's rights. Jim Crow laws was an arbitrary governmental restriction, legalization removes the arbitrary governmental restriction. As far as I know, those objections are irrelevant -- there is nothing saying "expanding people rights" or "removing governmental restrictions" are preferable compared to the opposite acts. As long as two acts of law both ab…
Well, maybe for you expanding rights and removing rights is the same thing. For me, it's not. Actually, I remember there was such thing as a Constitution where some guys wrote that people have the rights and government should be restricted in curtailing these rights, and they seemed to think that people's rights are preferable and government restrictions can be made only in specific limited areas. But what do they know? They're long dead anyway.
But let me ask you this: if for you it's the same, what problem you have with Jim Crow? After all, Jim Crow laws were approved by many courts and were considered very constitutional for a long time. So for you there was no problem with them? I know why I'd have problem with that - because they remove people's rights, and for only reason that they are of a "wrong" race. For me it's bad. But if for you there's no difference between people's right and government restrictions and one is not preferable to the other, what exactly is the problem there for you?
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US government is a pretty big boat and takes a while to turn around. You have to have patience and a longer view, but change does happen. In 2012 it was two states. Now it's four. We're getting there.
It's not just that the U.S. is a big boat, it's that the federal government is necessarily slow to respond to local changes. At the national level, the consensus in favor of legalizing marijuana shifted to a slight majority just last year: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports... . Indeed, if we're talking about the voting public, rather than just the general population, the national consensus…
Actually, I think when Tobacco and Pharmacy companies start to get a piece of the financial incentives in the states where it is legal, you will see their lobbying arm start to influence federal elections on the national level. It is assumed that Marlboro/Camel or whichever tobacco company, could expand their market tremendously with legalized marijuana federal legislation.
I am not an expert (anyone want to chime in?), however it seems right now, the industry does not seem to have any real monopolies and that individual dispensaries (which also have farms?) are making most of the money, rather than any corporations.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cannabis and opium poppies cannot be used to produce the same end-product. From what I understand, hemp can replace cotton in most end-products; being much easier to grow (and hence cheaper / more plentiful), it could potentially flood markets earlier reserved to cotton, hence depressing prices. Say you have two farmers; one grows cannabis, the other cotton. Because cannabis is easier to grow, the cannabis farmer has…
If cotton is an inferior crop, why would we want to keep planting so much of it? In this scenario where hemp & marijuana are legal, cotton farmers could start growing hemp too if that is more profitable.
There are absurd amounts of cotton subsidies in this country, to the extent that it's cheaper to ship American grown cotton to factories where it's made into shirts.
Typically the opposite happens, where we import crops (cocoa beans, etc) and make the products here to save money.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is true that small amounts of pot has been legal in Alaska, but my concern is geared towards greater accessibility. Now that it is legal and will be sold commercially it will be much easier for young adults to attain. Usually the youth will steal from their guardians, just like alcohol. I've been teaching 21 years and I can tell when a student has started smoking pot. When a young person begins smoking their grade…
I don't think increased accessibility is a legitimate concern. A pot smoking parent that can't keep their stash secure from their kids will be equally ineffective whether the pot was purchased from the black market or legally from the grocery store.
There will, however, be more pot smoking parents / grandparents / aunts and uncles / older siblings / etc.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I live in Alaska as a high school teacher. It's still illegal unless you're 21 or over, so I'm not really sure why that would make your job as a high school teacher any more difficult.
It is true that small amounts of pot has been legal in Alaska, but my concern is geared towards greater accessibility. Now that it is legal and will be sold commercially it will be much easier for young adults to attain. Usually the youth will steal from their guardians, just like alcohol. I've been teaching 21 years and I can tell when a student has started smoking pot. When a young person begins smoking their grade…
It's easy to believe there are situations you notice.
It's also easy to believe there are students where you don't notice.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be the most useless analogy I have ever encountered. I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you but I honestly have no idea what your point is. Corrections Corporation of America and other private prison companies openly fight efforts to relax drugs laws. Same for prison guard unions; In 2008 the CCPoA, California's largest prison guard union, was the most active opponent of Prop 5, which would have expanded tr…
I guess I'm questioning why the assumption is that they support drug laws because it makes them money. They may be supporting it for other reasons (strongly support law and order).
They have a duty to their shareholders to grow revenue and stay in business. If something threatens that, they will fight it. Like many other commercial enterprise they will spend money on lobbying to protect profits, in this case it is just particularly sickening how big the problem has become.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really doubt there will be much trouble moving weed between WA and OR. Even during the period when it was legal in WA and illegal in OR, OR police pretty much turned a blind eye to interstate "tourists" on suspiciously short trips across the border and back. Now that both states have legalized weed, this will be even less of an issue. And the likelihood that you run into a federal officer while crossing the WA/OR b…
I guess the only times (in recent history anyway) that states vigorously defend their borders is when it impacts their tax revenues. Are there big differences in how Washington and Oregon are taxing marijuana?
There is a huge difference in taxes, WA has some ridiculously expensive recreational pot (http://www.leafly.com/stateoftheleaf). Oregon's medical prices are the lowest in the country right now, retail will be more but not that much more.
Right now rec shops in Vancouver, WA are benefiting from their proximity to Portland, but that's going to flip around once Oregon is up and running.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
The marijuana growers in California did not support legalization as they felt (correctly) that it would impact their profit. They supported the status quo, which was enough to defeat legalization in California.
That's a second-order effect. The first-order effect is that even large, urban areas like LA did not get behind Prop. 19. The growers have minimal influence on LA voters.
This is all interesting, but it's also possible that Prop 19 failed because it was an extraordinarily overreaching measure. Here's the text:
http://ballotpedia.org/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regula...
Note that Prop 19 in effect makes marijuana use a protected class, in much the same manner as race, gender, and religion are. Employers, under Prop 19, could make personnel decisions based on an employee or candidate's marijuana consumption only if they could demonstrate in court that marijuana "actually impaired" the employee's job performance.
It gets worse: California's largest employers include companies that for any number of reasons have drug-free workplace policies that Prop 19 would have made unlawful overnight. Some of those policies are contractually required by relationships with companies operating in states where cannabis is criminalized.
Maybe discrimination against cannabis users is as important a public policy issue as discrimination against African Americans or Muslims. But the smart political strategy probably would have been to make its use not a crime first.
Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana
#180Here's an interesting piece of the Alaska marijuana legal status. We just voted to legalize recreational marijuana use, which includes growing and selling marijuana. I'm happy to see it pass because possession has been legal here for a long time, but sales and distribution has not. That's a murky legal situation, which I'm happy to see cleared up. But last night an article ran in our local paper stating that the Coas…
It just boggles the mind how perversely government logic looks here. So Alaskans say: we are OK with people using marijuana, we see no problem with it. And then the Feds come and say - well, we are still going to arrest and imprison you if you do it, despite the clear will of the people of Alaska, because we can. We know we don't actually change anything as we absolutely can not prevent people of Alaska from using ma…
What's perverse about the logic here? Alaskans say: we're okay with people using marijuana. And the Feds say: that's great, but we're not okay with it and as long as it involves interstate transportation or the coastal waters of the United States, we'll arrest you for it.
That's precisely the separation of state and federal power the founders envisioned.