Which will be the second U.S. state to legalize pot?

[Puppycow]

To the OP:

It would probably be a pot-producing state because the economic argument is even stronger. So, maybe Oregon or Hawaii. Hawaii would be my guess.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Pot's illegal??!!

Not in Michigan baby!

Of course, I am pretty sure the Veterans Administration (where I get my health care) will not okay marijuana.
There was an advertisement on the the local alternative rock station for a place called "Oaksterdam" to learn about the laws and how to grow legally for medical marijuana.
Applications to grow were about 1000 in number, and applications to use medically were about 3000, last I heard on Michigan Public Radio.

 

[KingMerv00]

Not in Michigan baby!

Try asking the federal government whether they agree or not. I recommend not bringing your pot with you.

 

[quarky]

Its getting less illegal. Haven't heard of anyone doing time for simple possesion of a gram or two in a long time, unless they were up to something worse, and it was the tool to bring them in. There isn't a state in the U.S. that can't produce top-notch weed.

Large-scale hemp production is a different matter.

 

[geni]

Alaska.

It's fairly legal already the state doesn't exactly have the cloest relationship with the federal goverment and Republicans in general have less need to try and boost the tough on crime credentials.

 

[geni]

The people who respond to demonizing pot tend to be older and are dying off one by one.

I'm not sure how true this is. Fair number of OAPs getting mixed up in the whole "medical marijuana" thing. Trying to work out where the oposition to marijuana comes from these days is getting tricky.

 

[Ladewig]

How can a state make MJ legal when I thought SCOTUS ruled it was illegal, even for medical purposes.

Wouldn't the federal law apply, such that no state could make it legal?

Am I missing something here?

Sorry I took so long responding. I asked my friend and his response was:

The Obama administration drastically changed this dynamic with just a slight alteration of criteria for federal intervention with marijuana dispensaries. Eric Holder announced that the federal government will no longer pursue medical marijuana dispensaries or patients unless they violate both federal and state laws. In the case of California, because medical marijuana is legal, federal intervention is no longer allowed in cases where California's medical marijuana laws are not broken. Thus, if California were to fully legalize marijuana, under current policy the federal government would not intervene.

This leaves Republicans in a very tough spot. Small government is the bedrock foundation of the party. However, if a “liberal” state legalizes marijuana, the only tool left to combat the legalization of marijuana is for the federal government to extend power over state government. Obama's actions cannot be criticized as an attempt to “deregulate” marijuana. Instead, it is a triumph of state rights over federal intervention.

More importantly, any attempt to fight state legalization of marijuana through suit automatically goes to the Supreme Court. This creates an opportunity to strike down previous legislation criminalizing marijuana as opposed to having the Democrats introduce a bill on the Senate floor to legalize pot.

 

[Hokulele]

Hawaii would be my guess.

Can you say, "Cash crop"?

It is always fun to listen to the stories from the people who lived in Pahoa (producers of the original Puna Butter) and Haiku (Maui Wowie) back in the days...

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Try asking the federal government whether they agree or not. I recommend not bringing your pot with you.

I don't think it matters what the states say if the feds can prosecute you anyways... as the man says, leave your bag at home.

 

[Fishstick]

Smoking pot can lead to emphysema, lung damage and cancer. If you want to destroy your life, go for it, but prepare to be arrested for possession and face a life of coming and going in and out of the penal system.

Adjusted your statement to reflect reality.

 

[ddt]

Again, is that what happened to the people who overturned the prohibition on alchohol? Is that what happened the the people in the Netherlands that legalized pot, or in California when they legalized it for medical purposes?

To be precise, it hasn't been legalized in the Netherlands. It's just that the public prosecutor won't touch you when you have up to 30 grams of the stuff. Even though most of the population would now be in favour of legalizing it, no government will do that pointing to the backlash from neighbouring countries. Once in a while, a politician will call for legalization; it won't earn him or his party votes, nor lose them.

But we got there because prosecutors and judges were never happy to to put thousands of people in jail just for possession of drugs. IIRC, a majority of the prisoners in the US is just in jail for that - possession. I can see how a DA in the US who is lenient on drug possession would be demonized by his opponent when he runs for re-election. Likewise for a politician. In such cases, the US two-party system just serves to polarize the issue and make a middle ground lose. Just look at the health care reform "debate" for evidence.

 

[Praktik]

Its getting less illegal. Haven't heard of anyone doing time for simple possesion of a gram or two in a long time, unless they were up to something worse, and it was the tool to bring them in. There isn't a state in the U.S. that can't produce top-notch weed.

Large-scale hemp production is a different matter.

I think a lot depends on where you live. Urban areas are perhaps less likely to arrest an individual for simple possession while the likelihood goes up in rural areas.

Especially here in Canada, where enforcement has become spotty - the application of the law is fairly arbitrary. None of my friends here in Toronto have faced charges for marijuana, even under contexts where you think it'd be a sure thing. Its a different story in rural Alberta of course...

While I'm sure America also has an unequal application of the law it appears that marijuana arrests are actually on the increase:

And according to this it appears as though 88% of the 830 000 arrested under marijuana laws in 2006 were for personal possession and use, not trafficking. 47% of all drug arrests are for marijuana.

It is likely you live in one of America's "islands of lax enforcement".

 

[quarky]

I think a lot depends on where you live. Urban areas are perhaps less likely to arrest an individual for simple possession while the likelihood goes up in rural areas.

Especially here in Canada, where enforcement has become spotty - the application of the law is fairly arbitrary. None of my friends here in Toronto have faced charges for marijuana, even under contexts where you think it'd be a sure thing. Its a different story in rural Alberta of course...

While I'm sure America also has an unequal application of the law it appears that marijuana arrests are actually on the increase:

[qimg]http://norml.org/share/marijuana_arrests_chart.gif[/qimg]

And according to this it appears as though 88% of the 830 000 arrested under marijuana laws in 2006 were for personal possession and use, not trafficking. 47% of all drug arrests are for marijuana.

It is likely you live in one of America's "islands of lax enforcement".

Yikes! I guess so.
That's obscene.

 

[Praktik]

Ya, pretty crazy.

I know here in Canada we had an uptick in marijuana arrests under the Conservatives when they took power.

While the Liberals were looking at introducing decriminalization legislation (it died when the outgoing PM decided he wanted an early summer, along with other crucial bills) they were not exactly telling police departments to NOT arrest, but they weren't telling them to arrest either. Our culture is definitely ahead of the political game though so I think that there was a socio-cultural trend to ignore simple possession in most heavily populated areas.

Under Harper and the Conservatives though, the arrests have been increasing for possession - and I think its cause the PDs know that the feds are in-line with a harder line on marijuana enforcement.

Looking at the American graph there, and the spike over the first 6 years of the 2000s, I wonder if having Bush in the Presidency didn't exacerbate things a bit (though it looks like this trendline extends back through Clinton's Presidency).

 

[DC]

I think a lot depends on where you live. Urban areas are perhaps less likely to arrest an individual for simple possession while the likelihood goes up in rural areas.

Especially here in Canada, where enforcement has become spotty - the application of the law is fairly arbitrary. None of my friends here in Toronto have faced charges for marijuana, even under contexts where you think it'd be a sure thing. Its a different story in rural Alberta of course...

While I'm sure America also has an unequal application of the law it appears that marijuana arrests are actually on the increase:

[qimg]http://norml.org/share/marijuana_arrests_chart.gif[/qimg]

And according to this it appears as though 88% of the 830 000 arrested under marijuana laws in 2006 were for personal possession and use, not trafficking. 47% of all drug arrests are for marijuana.

It is likely you live in one of America's "islands of lax enforcement".

100 per hour??????? cmon that cannot be true.
dont have cops alot to do? why do they waste their time with this stuff?

the only trouble i ever had with the police in regard to MJ was when a cop saw us sitting on the stairs of a church rolling up a J. and i had like 20g Hash on me. we had a debate about MJ and alcohol for about 15 minutes, then they left us alone.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How can a state make MJ legal when I thought SCOTUS ruled it was illegal, even for medical purposes.

Wouldn't the federal law apply, such that no state could make it legal?

Am I missing something here?

What you are “missing” is that this is yet another area in which the federal government refuses to obey the Constitution.

I am not in favor of legalizing marijuana or other “recreational drugs”, but this is an area in which I am convinced that the federal government has far overstepped its bounds. Nowhere, in the Constitution, is the federal government authorized to outlaw these drug, so, per the Tenth Amendment, it has no such authority, and any state that wishes to legalize the use of these things within its bounds is entirely within its rights to do so.

It's well worth noting that when we tried to prohibit alcohol in the early 20^th century, the relevant principles were very well understood and observed. The federal government did not have the authority to ban or restrict alcohol, and the only way to give it that authority was to amend the Constitution to explicitly give it that authority; hence the Eighteenth Amendment.

If we want these drugs to be banned at the federal level, then we need to amend the Constitution to give the federal government that authority. Until we do, the federal government is acting illegitimately in its efforts to restrict these things.

 

[Praktik]

I am not in favor of legalizing marijuana or other “recreational drugs” (except the one I enjoy, alcohol), but this is an area in which I am convinced that the federal government has far overstepped its bounds.

fixed...

 

[ServiceSoon]

Try asking the federal government whether they agree or not. I recommend not bringing your pot with you.

The Obama administration had a press release saying they wouldn't persue the "average recreational user." You could probably take the pot with you on your trip to ask the Fed, just leave it in your car.

 

[rustypouch]

Well, we all know the horrors of decriminalization.

Seriously, look what has happened in Portugal.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

[Ferguson]

Not in Michigan baby!

Actual mileage may vary, a friend of mine was recently "raided" by 7 officers in SWAT gear with AR-15's. Luckily they only found two joints, so once he was in custody he just got a fine, and today is still free and still chiefin'

Another friend of mine just got a letter, saying he was "suspected of trafficking," which was enough to make him quit smoking. Sending scary letters seems like a pretty cost-efficient method of enforcement

I guess it depends on whether the police feel they have something more important they should be doing...