Election 2012

Washington Initiative's Backers Seem Determined to Make Marijuana Legalization Boring

|

Behold the blandest set of law enforcement officials since Jack Webb teamed up with Harry Morgan:

That's the latest ad for Initiative 502, which would authorize state-licensed stores to sell marijuana for recreational purposes. The campaign's low-key, dull-as-dishwater approach may be just the ticket. A SurveyUSA poll in early September put support for I-502 at 57 percent, with 34 percent opposed and only 9 percent undecided. In a poll completed on September 30 by the same organization, the level of support was unchanged, making marijuana legalization more popular in Washington than President Obama.

Colorado's marijuana legalization initiative, meanwhile, still has a 10-point lead, with support at 50 percent and 10 percent undecided. Amendment 64's backers also are highlighting support from current and former law enforcement officials. Former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo endorsed the initiative last month, saying:

I am endorsing Amendment 64 not despite my conservative beliefs, but because of them.

Throughout my career in public policy and in public office, I have fought to reform or eliminate wasteful and ineffective government programs. There is no government program or policy I can think of that has failed in such a unique way as marijuana prohibition.

Tancredo, who as a Republican presidential candidate in 2008 endorsed a federalist approach to medical marijuana, has been moving in this direction for several years. In a recent piece about Amendment 64 for The Atlantic, Molly Ball notes that "in each of his 10 years in Congress, [Tancredo] voted for an unsuccessful amendment that would have denied funding to the Justice Department" for medical marijuana raids. Tancredo's evolution on drug policy seems similar to the conversion of former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, a conservative Republican who began to criticize federal interference with state medical marijuana laws in 2006 and eventually renounced his support for the war on drugs convincingly enough to become the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential candidate. (As Ed Krayewski noted last week, Washington's initiative also has attracted support from a prominent Republican: state legislator Michael Baumgartner, who is challenging Sen. Maria Cantwell, an I-502 opponent.)

Ball argues that that the arguments used by Amendment 64's opponents implicitly concede a lot:

It's a sign of how times have changed that the opposition relies not on a front group of concerned parents, as so often in the past, but on largely technical arguments on how the initiative is likely to get tied up in court if it passes. They don't really bother to argue that pot is dangerous; they contend that it's basically legal already, so why tinker with the sanctity of the state's founding document?

After years of referenda, "Coloradans are at this point not inclined to add anything else to the constitution," says Laura Chapin, communications director for No on 64. "Our constitution is cluttered enough already, we've got conflicting directives in it, and Amendment 64, as legislators have pointed out, most likely conflicts with another constitutional amendment, TABOR"—the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, on the books since 1992, which requires voter approval of tax increases. Chapin says that's at odds with Amendment 64's directive that legislators levy an excise tax on marijuana.

Given that pot is already basically legal, Chapin says, voters won't see the need for a ballot initiative that will cause legislative confusion, put the state at odds with federal law and potentially damage the tourism industry by making Colorado the Amsterdam of America. "Anybody who's been to a concert can tell you nobody's actually being arrested for simple pot possession in Colorado," she said. "What does this get us that we don't already have?"

I discussed the prospect of marijuana legalization by ballot initiative in a column last month.

NEXT: U.S. Court Won't Dismiss Megaupload Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jacob I would be interested to hear what you think of the dui clause in WA’s initiative. Five nanograms of THC in the blood seems awful low.

    1. It might not be, sage, but I’m not familiar with THC ranges in the blood for different levels of intake (one puff as opposed to one joint as opposed to Tommy Chong). Any doctors or lab analysts care to chime in?

      1. Food blood blood blood blood I need it I need blood need blood

    2. While I have a serious problem with drug prohibition, I do not have a problem with strict dui laws.

      Y’all might have gathered this already, but I drink a bit.
      Hell, I am drunk now. But I never, ever, ever get behind the wheel if I have had even one drop. I also regularly serve as a designated driver for my wife and her buddies. I only drink at home and then it is straight to bed for me.

      If 5 nanograms is low, so be it. My wife and my children are out there on those roads. I want everyone else driving on them to be 100% sober.

      1. If 5 nanograms is low, so be it. My wife and my children are out there on those roads. I want everyone else driving on them to be 100% sober.

        Defining 100% sober is trickier than you’d think.

        1. I am aware of that….and that laws aimed at anything can (probably will ) be abused. I have no problem with erring on the side of caution when setting a limit.

          The arizona law ‘dui in the slightest’ is of course bullshit. Asking a cops opinion is not the same as a blood test. One is verifiable and the other decidedly not.

          1. And the colossal “but…” in your statement shows that you don’t care about liberty when it impinges on your pet issues.

            1. So your solution to this problem is……?

              1. If they harm you or your family (or anyone else for that matter), then the perpetrator is punished accordingly.

                Until that happens, you have no right to control their actions.

                1. So you think it should be legal to go to the middle of a park with a rifle, close your eyes and spin around shooting in random directions?

                  1. Driving a car drunk isn’t analogous to randomly shooting a gun. Nice try with a ridiculous comparison, though.

                    1. Ha ha. Gojira used the same analogy below.

                      And it doesn’t have to be, of course; Gojira’s principle would lead him to oppose laws against either. So if Gojira’s principle against DUI laws is held he must oppose laws against randomly firing a gun.

                    2. Driving a car drunk isn’t analogous to randomly shooting a gun. Nice try with a ridiculous comparison, though.

                      They aren’t analogous? Both of them sound like reckless endangerment to me.

          2. Except that blood test is what I consider to essentially be a warrantless search, plus essentially forcing you to testify against yourself. The refusal to give a blood test resulting in an automatic conviction also wildly unconstitutional.

          3. Well I’ll give you a heads up…don’t drive in my state.

      2. I do think that this will move the needle in the right direction. But the needle of police state expansion might move in the wrong direction. Sigh. At least I can get legally high.

      3. If 5 nanograms is low, so be it. My wife and my children are out there on those roads. I want everyone else driving on them to be 100% sober.

        Sorry, I normally like you, but that right there captures the mindset of the statist perfectly. They may think they’re all for freedom in every area, and then add in that, “…but”. Your particular issue is driving, at which point, for the children, you’re willing to impose your beliefs onto others whether they have caused you harm or not, merely based on the suspicion that they might.

        Sorry, but being free means being able to do what you want, when you want, until/unless you actually harm someone, at which point you lose freedom based on the severity of the offense.

        My wife and kid are on that road, too. And I still won’t use that as an excuse to control the behavior of others.

        1. You normally like me because I am impossible to dislike. Heh.

          So you have no problem with me walking around any downtown area in the US and target practicing with my pistol? I am a hellofa shot so it is highly unlikely that I would injure anyone. Impaired driving is considerably more dangerous.

          1. No, I have no problem with that. As long as you are held responsible for any damage caused (chipped bricks, etc.).

            “I normally like you” means I normally nod in agreement w/ your typical posts, instead of having a knee-jerk anger spasm ala Tony, Tulpa, etc. Besides, us southron boyz gotta stick together (collectivism FTW!)

            1. I know what you meant * takes another hard swig * .

              I disagree though that wild recklessness that is highly likely to cost someone their life is tolerable. Chipped bricks, smashed cars….so what? Its just stuff. It can be fixed or replaced. People cant be.

              I want to be clear that I am NOT advocating for anything like what is currently being practiced in dui enforcement.

        2. It’s not just harm, it’s also endangerment. Pointing a gun at someone’s head and playing Russian Roulette might not cause any harm, but it’s certainly endangerment, and nothing in the non-aggressment principle says we have to allow it.

          Same thing with drinking and driving. If you’re drunk/stoned and out on the road you are endangering the lives of others. I think 5 nanograms is too low of a standard, but your thesis that you can be completely stoned off your gourd and still be allowed to drive is completely ridiculous.

      4. So you don’t care that aggressive enforcement of DUIs can and often do involve warrantless searches (breathalyzer or blood test), unconstitutional stops, presumption of guilt, and a whole host of other liberty-destroying shit, and they would be much better handled by a reckless driving charge which would actually deal with people who are driving badly.

        Well, you’ve shown once again that many libertarians aren’t libertarians at all, especially on their pet issues or when they have kids.

        1. Big talk from the guy who wants to build concentration camps for anyone whoa ever paid money to see Con Air.

          1. Subsidizing Michael Bay counts as aggression against me personally, and mankind in general.

          2. THAT’S DIFFERENT.

        2. I’d prefer a move towards a reckless driving charge rather than DUI laws, but it needs to have teeth if it’s to be effective at reducing damage caused by reckless drivers (which ATM it does not).

          Frankly, teaching automotive maintenance and handling as part of the high school curriculum (and making our driving tests more stringent) would help more than all the DUI laws, reckless driving statutes, and speed limits put together. Germany is probably closer to this paradigm than any other country, and does very well at maintaining low traffic fatalities and morbidities.

        3. Given the choice between legalizing something and not legalizing something I m going to have to go with legalizing something.

          Driving stoned was already illegal and the methods enforcing it were already draconian.

          If I had to guess I think the blood test will only be administered after car accidents….which is exactly what you are calling for.

          and they would be much better handled by a reckless driving charge which would actually deal with people who are driving badly.

        4. I’m probably more radical on this than anybody else, in that I absolutely refuse to believe in pre-crime. I’m perfectly OK with someone spraying a machine gun into a crowd; as long as they don’t hit anybody or cause any property damage (a long-shot in that scenerio, to be sure, but I’m using hyperbole to illustrate the point) then they haven’t committed a crime.

          1. You’re not more radical than me, JJ. I agree with you 100%. My suggestion of reckless driving was to present a solution that would work within the political world we live in.

            So much about DUI laws is just utterly wrong. But it’s become an absolute boon for the state and all the shit it loves. It raises money, gives cops additional powers, allows the bloodthirsty to punish vastly more people with draconian fines and punishments, it attracts tons of crony capitalism in the form of “treatment”, “driving classes”, etc. that the court forces people to take (and pay for), and it’s all for the children, and they just keep making it more draconian, because, I mean, who is in favor of drunk driving, right?

            1. Well that makes two of us. By my calculations *counts fingers, furrows brow in frustration, recounts, pulls out dick and begins whacking* that means in order to get the law changed, we only have to convince this many more *shows fingers and penis*.

              1. We can do it!

                Let me give you a particularly egregious example. A coworker of mine at a previous job had a 20-year-old daughter who got caught walking–that’s right, walking, not driving–with a beer in her hand. She lost her license for six months. She couldn’t drive to school or her job. All under the pretense of “zero tolerance”.

                This was in CT where I got caught many years ago at 20 years old buying enough liquor to get an entire dorm drunk, and the idea of it having something to do with my license would have been beyond ludicrous.

                1. Don’t get my started on CT. I used to process foreclosures in that state exclusively. Normally we have a portfolio of a variety of states, but after I became a “senior” leader, I got to handle that basket-case all by itself, b/c there’s so much herp and derp that goes on.

                  A borrower can basically prevent his own foreclosure for as long as he wants as long as he shows up to the count and tells the judge that, all things considered, he’d really rather not be homeless this month and honestly, he’s good for it, he just needs to get on his feet.

                  I had foreclosures in that fucking state that literally have taken 3 years from time of referral, 4 years from initial default.

                  Contrast that w/ Texas, where it’s 3 months at most, wham bam thank-you-ma’am (now get the fuck out).

          2. “I’m perfectly OK with someone spraying a machine gun into a crowd; as long as they don’t hit anybody or cause any property damage”

            “You’re not more radical than me, JJ. I agree with you 100%. ”

            Christ. Would someone please explain to me why the libertarian movement cant get any serious traction?

            1. Because most people are willing to throw liberty under the bus when it comes to their pet issues?

              1. Should attempted murder not be illegal?

            2. Oh look, JJ, here’s a “you’re not serious” argument…from the guy who doesn’t take liberty or principles seriously.

              That’s rich.

              1. No, it is a ‘pull your head out of your ass and stop saying stoopid shit.’ argument.

                Advocating that people should be allowed to drive stoned/drunk is really dumb. Nuclear dumb. It is a fucking losing argument and it is retarded shit like that that costs us a shit-ton of credibility.

                1. I’m not going for credibility, nor do I base my philosophical positions on their popularity or probability of being enacted in the current environment.

                  I’m firmly on the side of “idealist” as opposed to “pragmatist”. Of course, the best results require both kinds of people. The pragmatists to actually advance the cause, and the idealists to make sure and hold the pragmatists feet to the fire to make sure they don’t compromise everything away. It doesn’t really work without both elements.

                  1. “I’m perfectly OK with someone spraying a machine gun into a crowd; as long as they don’t hit anybody or cause any property damage”

                    How could you guarantee that your bullets would not enter someone else’s property – hence an initiation of force, which we abhor? there is almost nowhere in public you could do this. On your own property, OK. Also, someone in that crowd could easily fear for his life and shoot you dead with full justification.

                    1. Good point; in this example there is an implicit threat of force on the part of the machine gun wielder before he even fires a bullet.

                      A better example would be someone who fires from a concealed position. Though even then, the bullet whizzing past nearby would be a threat of force, no?

                      The example needs tweaking. Perhaps the person in question has set up some sort of autonomous machine gun firing device where he knows there will be a crowd at a certain time. There’s no threat on the part of the setter-upper there.

                  2. Well put Gojira.

                    Epi….its a shame I cant spray you with a cold waterhose. Calm down.

                    Not caring about credibility is what hobbles all of your efforts. How the fuck can you advance liberty in the minds of the public if you dont give a shit about credibility? Maybe you dont understand whaty the word credibility means. Yeah, I am drunk as hell but being one hell of a lot more reasonable than you are.

                    Yep, a really cold waterhose.

                    1. How the fuck can you advance liberty in the minds of the public if you dont give a shit about credibility?

                      It’s not even credibility that’s his problem. Gojira is stating stuff that seems just as batty to me, but I’m not going to give him too hard a time over it because he’s civil about it.

                      Epi’s issue (as demonstrated once again here) is that he rips into anyone who disagrees with him in the most vulgar way possible.

                    2. “Epi’s issue (as demonstrated once again here) is that he rips into anyone who disagrees with him in the most vulgar way possible.”

                      Yeah, I have noticed that before. I still like epi, but
                      I am more patient than most.

                    3. Dude, you’re the one who starting flinging around terms like “nuclear dumb” and shit, too. Don’t forget you’re loaded. And if you think this is “the most vulgar way possible”, well, I guess I’ll just have to rip into Tulpa Dumb some more sometime and show you what I can really do. Sound like fun, Tulpy-poo?

                      I think you’re basically a decent person, but this is one of the issues with decent people, and it’s their compromising on liberty. JJ and I have explained our viewpoint. Yes, it is an extreme one: extremely in the direction of liberty.

                      And remember, I am not a libertarian, I am an individualist anarchist. I have no plans or intentions to advance libertarianism. If it advances, I will be happy, but proselytizing is not my mission.

                    4. *Sigh*

                      I apologize and take back anything I said thata might have offended you. Sincerely.

                      You seem to want the world to be in a state that it cleraly is not, and you have no realistic plan or intention for changing it in that direction. So, I am confused as to your strategy, or if you have one.

                      You want laws changed? YOu have to convince large numbers of people to change them. That required credibility. If you dont want to do that then you are just content to whine and bitch about how unfair the world is and not do anything about it?

                      give me something to work with here.

                    5. So, I am confused as to your strategy, or if you have one.

                      Does Epi look like a guy with a strategy?

                    6. Sorry but your position is NOT in the direction of liberty.

                      In your world, if a guy comes waving a gun at me, I have no right to shoot him or punch him in the fucking face and disarm him. After all, my right to compell him only starts when his bullets intersect with soneone’s vital organs.

                      There is a point where the risk of force escalates into the threat of force, and at that point liberty is infringed. We regard government skeptically because of its implicit threat of force, not just its actual transgressions. Whether government or person, threats are threats and not treated with a blind eye.

                    7. I am an individualist anarchist.

                      lol!

                    8. Better than being a crypto-Republican assbag. Although I am impressed you didn’t try to somehow work in abortion in at least one post, SIV.

                    9. “lol!”
                      Great argument!

                  3. How cute of you to say pragmatists are necessary moments after accusing us of throwing liberty under the bus for our pet issues.

                    The problem isn’t that you’re an idealist, it’s that your ideal is extremely flawed. You’re essentially handing over the roads to the most reckless people. Within your ideal, I don’t even see how you can justify any traffic laws whatsoever.

                    1. Directed at the radioactive monster guy.

                2. Spare me your useless intoxicated declarations on what is dumb. JJ and I have pointed out we do not believe in “pre-crime”, that it is a form of thoughtcrime.

                  You don’t agree? I don’t give a fuck, and I don’t give a fuck about “credibility”.

                  The reason liberty advancement fails is you, and 99% of the other people on this planet. You just can’t handle the logical endpoints of true liberty. And so you end up accepting and tacitly endorsing policies that cannot help but grow and encourage statists.

                  Every time you agree to “sensible limits” to something which has had no harm done yet, you enable the statists who will then take that “sensible” ball and fucking run with it.

                  Thanks so much.

                  1. Shooting a machine gun into a crowd is thoughtcrime?

                  2. I am responsible for the death of liberty, the institutionalization of slavery, for totalitarianism everywhere. Mass murders even. I didnt realize I was that evil.

                    Other topic….who was godwin and didnt he come up with some kind of rule or law or something? Never mind, it isnt related to this discussion.

                    1. You made Steve Gutenberg a star, too.

          3. Depends on how you define crime.

            If you only consider coercive acts to be crimes, then OK, reckless endangerment is not a crime. Of course, neither is looking up a woman’s skirt when you’re on the escalator, counterfeiting, perjury that helps a criminal defendant, or putting a hidden camera in your bathroom. So I’m not sure how far you’re willing to go with that.

            I’d define crime more broadly to say the least; doing something obviously dangerous to others who have no realistic opportunity to avoid what you’re doing, is a slam dunk to me.

            If your position is that the people who are put in danger by drunk drivers consent to that by using the roads, that’s BS because they have just as much right to the road as the drunks do.

          4. “I’m perfectly OK with someone spraying a machine gun into a crowd; as long as they don’t hit anybody or cause any property damage ”

            What if someone should have a heart attack? If people get trampled in the ensuing panic?

        5. Not to mention the fact that completely sober marijuana users still have THC in their systems.

          1. Not anywhere near 5 ng per ml they don’t.

            1. No, and I read on that it looks like the particular measure in question might eliminate that possibility.

              Several states have some kind of zero tolerance laws about this, though, such that any level of THC counts as “drugged driving,” or whatever.

              1. Some states’ per se dui/swi standard is a lower thresh hold than a positive test under the USDOT standard. The proposed level for WA essentially allows you to drive stoned.

          2. There is storage of fat soluble cannabinoids in adipose tissue up to a steady state in chronic users, with elimination in urine of water soluble catabolites. The steady state concentration in blood leaves them sober.

        6. “So you don’t care that aggressive enforcement of DUIs can and often do involve warrantless searches (breathalyzer or blood test), unconstitutional stops, presumption of guilt, and a whole host of other liberty-destroying shit,…..”

          I care very much about those issues. I merely said that setting a low limit for intoxication is something I dont have a problem with. I also noted that laws like these, and all others, are prone to being abused. Dealing with police behavior is another matter.

          1. Except that low levels for intoxication do not accurately reflect impairment across different people. Once again, you’d rather infringe on people’s liberty for minor improvements in safety. Once again, you show that your commitment to liberty suddenly ceases on your pet issues.

            1. What level of safety improvement would you think justifies “infringing on people’s liberty” to drink and drive?

      5. I don’t know if 5ng is too low. I would like somebody who does know how intoxication correlates to THC blood level to chime in. Is there anybody like that?

        Having said that, I have absolutely no problem with reasonable and rational DUI laws.

        1. Reasonable and rational are the sticking points. A couple of normally rational commenters are going ape-shit because I said that setting low limits is not a problem for me.

          Of course what that conjured up in their heads are the insane jack-boot tactics currently being employed in dui enforcement. That isnt what I meant at all.

          1. Unfortunately those are the only tactics offered.

            1. See Corning and Immaculate Trouser above for a rational suggestion. And they arent even spraying machine gun fire into a crowd.

              1. And they arent even spraying machine gun fire into a crowd.

                Pussies.

          2. A couple of normally rational commenters

            Epi is a Joss Whedon fan.

            That is all that needs to be said here.

      6. While I have a serious problem with drug prohibition, I do not have a problem with strict dui laws.

        Why is the government in charge of roads and laws permitting their use in the first place? Privately owned and operated roads = rules set by their owner, or else being kindly asked to believe before you’re guilty of trespassing.

        Y’all might have gathered this already, but I drink a bit.

        My grandmother was very negatively affected by alcoholism and I want everybody in the world to be 100% sober. So I strongly support alcohol prohibition laws. It’s completely reasonable for me to force my moral opinions on everyone else out of personal fear.

        If 5 nanograms is low, so be it. My wife and my children are out there on those roads. I want everyone else driving on them to be 100% sober.

        My wife and my kids have been out there on those roads, and the presence of people in Toyota Priuses really bothers me because I regularly see them driving 55 in the fast lane, making unsafe left turns, being smug, etc. I want everyone else driving on them to be 100% Prius-free. Do you hate babies and kids???

  2. Behold the blandest set of law enforcement officials since Jack Webb teamed up with Harry Morgan…

    So would you say the marijuana initiative isn’t likely to create a buzz?

  3. Take it with a grain of salt but California NORML cites some paper I can’t read which suggests 5 nanograms per milliliter of whole blood would only show up if you had smoked within the past hour or so.

    [06a] G Skopp and L Potsch, “Cannabinoid concentrations in spot serum samples 24-48 hours after discontinuation of cannabis smoking,” Journal of Analytical Toxicology 32: 160-4 (2008).

    The link goes to the NORML page not the cite they reference

    1. You’d think they would only blood test after an accident with injuries/death but maybe they’ll stick everybody at roadblocks while they check their anuses for cocaine.

      1. How much will it cost to watch you snort a line up your anus?

    2. By the time they get you to a hospital lab (I would not consent to Officer Pokey doing the draw) that level of THC would be gone. If they’re right, of course.

      1. Is it 5 nanograms per ml of whole blood or serum?

        Too bad the WA law won’t allow home cultivation.

        1. Here’s the text of the initiative:

          http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elec…..s/i502.pdf

          1. It’s whole blood.

          2. “THC
            concentration does not include measurement of the metabolite THC-COOH,
            also known as carboxy-THC.”

            Have no idea what this means.

            1. It means they can only test for the stuff that gets you high, not the stuff that fails a piss test a week later.

              1. This is actually quite reasonable by government standards. Now if only they’d legalize home cultivation…

  4. “Kate” seems like a strange name for a man.

    1. She’s only 27 years old, but she smoked…

      REEFER!

        1. Hans is 31 years old

          Germans age pretty good.

          Sure they become squares of flesh…but to be honest they kind of started that way to begin with.

    2. Sort of looks like Gene Wilder in drag.

    3. That’s nothing – I recently found out there’s a famous man named Rachel.

      Yeah, it turns out the bass player for Skid Row is Rachel Bolan.

      (Congratulates self for not making the obvious Rachel Maddow joke)

  5. These state ballots are no more important that small town or municipal ballots in their intended purpose.

    Simply put, marijuana is not a “states rights” thing. The US is party to the UN international drug control treaties. Since the US has actually ratified these treaties, they are, according to Article Six of the US Constitution, the “law of the land.” Judges MUST enforce the Constitution over any state or local laws.

    In other words, these referendums really aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, or the votes they get. You’ll have to either change the Constitution, or the ratified UN international treaties to get anything done around here.

    OK, now I’ve earned my huge three foot bong hit for educating someone out there…

    1. So if it’s grown in California and sold in California and consumed in California, it affects “international commerce”?

      I guess that follows from Wickard v. Filburn…

    2. There’s a ton of shit every nation that belongs to the UN is supposed to be doing/not doing, that is ignored every day. It’s utterly meaningless.

    3. Portugal and the Netherlands are signatories to that treaty, and still run their decrim/partial legalization regimens with no problem.

      The US population would tell the UN where it could stick its international resolutions, if that ever became a real problem.

      1. Marijuana is illegal in both the Netherlands and Portugal.They just don’t enforce the law so much.

        The above commenter is right about the treaties.

        1. Of course the other signatories have a general police power that the federal govt of these United States does not. Can we dig up the Pres and Senators that signed/approved that treaty and impeach and urinate all over them?

    4. Treaties cannot contradict the Constitution. The Constitution does not authorize the government to outlaw drugs, so the government does not have the power to make treaties that outlaw drugs. Treaties are not a loophole to push through unconstitutional laws without an amendment (in theory of course, no one cares about the Constitution in practice)

      1. The 1971 Controlled Substances Act was passed to comply with the UN Single Convention. Nixon gets all the blame but I believe JFK signed the treaty.

        1. And that contradicts what I said how exactly? Treaties cannot grant the government powers not granted to it by the Constitution. Nor do ordinary laws. They can only be added by amendment.

          1. You still go to prison.

            1. Ok, that doesn’t make it Constitutional, which is what the Apostle was trying to argue. And let’s not pretend the UN can enforce anything anywhere, let alone a drug treaty in America

              1. The US is enforcing it for the UN. That is why people go to jail. To meet the treaty obligations. The JBS is totally right about the UN. We shouldn’t just withdraw but totally destroy it. Withdrawal, defunding and eviction from NYC would accomplish the task.

                1. I agree about the UN. My point was that the US signing that treaty doesn’t make prohibition legal, because the Constitution does not grant the government the power to make drugs illegal, and the government cannot use treaties to get around the Constitution. Of course, they don’t care about that. I’m speaking from a theoretical perspective

    5. Judges MUST enforce the Constitution over any state or local laws.

      So if a state repeals its statutes against marijuana, and the feds do the same… how exactly would a judge enforce the treaty in question? They need a prosecutor to prosecute and some sort of sentencing statute.

      That’s a big problem with treaties that require signatories to pass certain laws. It’s not at all clear how they would be enforceable against signatories that do not do this.

  6. “Our Constitution is cluttered enough…” Don’t want to mess it up more by adding one more freedom.

    1. I have a list of amendments they could remove from the CO constittion, if they want to make room for marijuana legalization…

  7. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.EasyPrivacy.tk

  8. Washington Initiative’s Backers Seem Determined to Make Marijuana Legalization Boring

    It isn’t already?

  9. “Anybody who’s been to a concert can tell you nobody’s actually being arrested for simple pot possession in Colorado,” she said. “What does this get us that we don’t already have?”

    Actual legal status as opposed to just a de facto legal status where the cops look the other way as long as you’re not the “wrong kind” of pot user, as was discussed in an earlier thread.

    1. Also rule of law, where the cops can’engage in selective enforcement of laws.

  10. http://www.france24.com/en/201…..mans-mouth

    I want one. For my front yard.

    1. You want passers-by stopping to make a sissy in your yard?

  11. Oh….once again for the sole purpose of making everyone jealous,, I have to announce that today I aquired a SampersandW model 29. Pinned barrel, countersunk cylinder, 6.5in barrel and still in the box, unfired.

    1. I need only the mod 27 now to complete my smith collection. And Gojira, I will not be shooting it downtown.

    2. Is it in the pretty wood box with the cleaning tools?

      My only N-frame is a Model 28 “Highway Patrolman”. I still kick myself for passing on a Model 57 .41 mag in blue w the 8 3/8″ barrel in the wood box for only $600 about 5 years ago.It lasted for about 2 seconds after I said “Let me think about it”.

      1. “Is it in the pretty wood box with the cleaning tools?”

        Yes.

        I have the mod 57 8-3/8 barrel and it is SWEET.I nailed a 500+ lb hog with it a few years ago.
        I also have one with a 6 inch barrel. the machine work on both are immaculate.

        I already had the 44 in stainless, now I have it in blue. Now all I need is the mod 27….*sigh*

        1. oh, and I have a beautiful mod 19 w a 4 in barrel and round grips.

          I am going to build display cases for these gems…and a few others.

  12. Amendment 64, as legislators have pointed out, most likely conflicts with another constitutional amendment, TABOR” — the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, on the books since 1992, which requires voter approval of tax increases. Chapin says that’s at odds with Amendment 64’s directive that legislators levy an excise tax on marijuana.

    Ummm… Check my logic on this, but doesn’t the measure passing at the ballot box count as voter approval of the explicitly required tax?

    1. Yeah, it would seem to me that, as long as 64 passes by the amount necessary to approve a tax increase, it’s a done deal.

  13. I bet A-Rod was the first one to go home after tonight’s game.

  14. no mention of US senate candidate, michael baumgartner’s support of 502?!?

  15. “Washington Initiative’s Backers Seem Determined to Make Marijuana Legalization Boring”

    which exact point i have made and will continue to make – is a good strategy.

    we NEED boring, “respectable” advocates – teachers, firemen, doughty old ladies, cops, accountants, businesspeople, etc. advocating legal marijuana.

    one of the above has greater positive influence than 1000 spicoli’s (i say as a surfer who used to reside in california). the spicoli’s actually can often have a very negative influence imo

    1. Why couldn’t Sean Penn star in Michael Bay’s remake of the Twilight Zone movie?

      1. Why couldn’t Sean Penn star in Michael Bay’s remake of the Twilight Zone movie?

        I am a horrible person for not being sad if Penn were to do that movie and lose his head like Vic Morrow?

        1. as much as i loathe the man’s politics (in general) and i do think he is an insufferable putz… i have to give penn credit for his work in haiti.

          i can’t argue with his humanitarian boots on the ground efforts and the fact that he is saving lives. i just have to give the man credit for it.

  16. call i had months ago…

    “X85 respond to ______ report of a man running down the street chasing a woman, holding one hand up in air, apparently gushing blood. armed with a knife in the other hand, approximately 8” blade. waving knife back and forth as he is running. woman screaming for “help”. description follows:…”

    upon arrival, determination: dude cut off his finger… in front of his gf because he found out she was on the pill. the fact that she was on the pill meant to him that she didn’t love him enough, since she wouldn’t automatically have his baby. and she hadn’t told him. as he slices the finger off, she runs. he is chasing her, blood gushing from the stump, holding the finger in the air, triumphantly

    when i get there, he is screaming “THIS IS HOW MUCH I LOVE YOU. THIS”.

    aftermath: he got taken into protective custody. he was not shot, btw, and yes he still had the bloody knife on him when we detained him. he got invol’d to the hospital for a civil commit. no crim charges. was observed briefly at hospital, fixed up, and let go from their “custody” (technically they can hold up to 72 hrs if they have reason to believe danger to self/others and then the person must have a mental health hearing before a judge before he can be held any longer. usually,they are held from 2-10 hrs in my experience, with very rare exceptions).

    a million cool stories, bro… ER docs, cops, firefighters see some good shit

  17. David Suzuki needs an economics refresher course

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le4602350/

    This is obvious, but the writer then goes on with COASE COASE COASE

  18. You know who else is not impressed by Obama?

    1. Honey badger?

  19. officer does a phenomenal job here but ends up having to shoot. excellent work at deescalation, verbalization, command presence, etc. but some people just won;t comply and get assaultive.

    tragic, but ENTIRELY justified and sad that these racist thugs would sacrifice their lives over a traffic stop

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..AvjMd-u79E

  20. in re: MJ and THC levels for driving etc. and the VERY problematic dui aspect of WA’s proposed legalization of MJ law…

    http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/re…..gs_web.pdf

    pretty good article

    1. Dextromethorphan is listed as causing mild to moderate impairment in that PDF file and it’s completely legal to buy as much as you want at any drugstore.

      Or do we need to make cough syrup a Schedule I substance to protect ourselves against the impending doom of robo-tripping motorists?

  21. NEve really thought about it like that dude.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  22. Behold the blandest set of law enforcement officials since Jack Webb teamed up with Harry Morgan

    I remember this episode where a baby drowned in a bathtub because the mother was out in the kitchen getting stoned. Typical Dragnet. It was supposed to be a big indictment of marijuana, but the same thing could have happened if the mom were drinking, or screwing the postman, or watching a soap opera, or reading the Bible, etc.

  23. Thanks for posting this. Today I watched 16?9 documentary film investigating Health Canada’s medical marijuana licence program that reveals some doctors and lawyers profiting from the program, titled ‘Smoke and Mirrors: Medical Marijuana Corruption’. I recommend you to watch this if you did n’t watch yet.

    http://www.thegreatplanet.com/…..orruption/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.