Proposals and Ballot Initiatives (Catch All)

My gut tells me this will bring the fed to the table, at the least. While we may not see it fall off schedule 1 this year, the writing is on the wall. I anticipate a look the other way policy for now. This is a sea change. A dad of a friend of mine in college was a Doc, and an early advocate for potential medical uses of marijuana. This was back in the 80s. He was basically drummed out of the profession, had his license taken away, and lost his livelihood for his views, now accepted practice in many states. Change is happening.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Didn't the DEA raid a handful of California dispensaries just a couple months ago?

Yeah, Obama said in a Rolling Stone interveiw that while they're not looking to bust individuals using pot, but they're not backing off large scale growers or distributors.

Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What's up with that?
Here's what's up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, "Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books." What I can say is, "Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage." As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.

The only tension that's come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do. I do think it's important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we've done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We've had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that's an appropriate debate that we should have.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...

I see it being revisited in the Supreme Court if the next president sees fit to do away with Obama's police of non-prosecution, or if congress does not change the federal law.

All things being equal, the last time this was visited was in 2005 and the composition of the court is very different. Additionally I think a savvy attorney will not try to overturn that on commerce grounds. I would predict Roberts, Alito, and Scalia to vote against prosecution (just like Scalia did the last time) but on commerce grounds. Thomas would also vote against. That leaves courting 1 of the newer more liberal judges over to that majority. There is a solid chance Obama will make as many as 3 appointments in the next 4 years. There is this amazing age schism in the court presently.

EDIT: Given prevailing attitudes on pot, drugs in general, the consensus at the state and local level is that the war is over. If not legalizing, marijuana is being decriminalized in many places, especially larger cities. It costs so much damn money to police and then prosecute and eventually jail pot dealers/smokers. Harder drugs may be a tougher sell, especially in light of the AMA and the FDA. But cutting out a good deal of the funding for the war on drugs could do wonders for the budget.

I worked as an election official this cycle and have to admit that doing so has completely soured me on the whole ballot initiative process. I confess I was never a big fan of it in the first place and think that, philosophically, it is just a mechanism for elected officials to pass the buck and/or for moneyed interests to bypass the normal political process, but this last election pretty much convinced me that the whole exercise is pretty moronic.

There were literally 12 separate ballot initiatives on the Maryland ballot this time around. Two of them were actually advertised and had money attached to either side (#'s 6 and 7 for gay marriage and table gaming). The others were mostly crap that legislators are supposed to be paid to freaking hash out in session.

Instead, it just gummed up the voting process as folks who had no freaking idea what the hell they were voting for spent 45 minutes in the booth reading up and trying to interpret what it all meant.

Voter initiatives suck ass.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Didn't the DEA raid a handful of California dispensaries just a couple months ago?

Word on the street here in Seattle is that while the DEA has raided some dispensaries around here, it tends to be the shadiest and least letter-of-the-law places that are getting targeted.

Anecdotally, there's literally 20 dispensaries within 3 miles of my home now, with more opening on a seemingly-weekly basis. DEA aren't exactly clamping down on it hard.

Paleocon wrote:

I worked as an election official this cycle and have to admit that doing so has completely soured me on the whole ballot initiative process. I confess I was never a big fan of it in the first place and think that, philosophically, it is just a mechanism for elected officials to pass the buck and/or for moneyed interests to bypass the normal political process, but this last election pretty much convinced me that the whole exercise is pretty moronic.

There were literally 12 separate ballot initiatives on the Maryland ballot this time around. Two of them were actually advertised and had money attached to either side (#'s 6 and 7 for gay marriage and table gaming). The others were mostly crap that legislators are supposed to be paid to freaking hash out in session.

Instead, it just gummed up the voting process as folks who had no freaking idea what the hell they were voting for spent 45 minutes in the booth reading up and trying to interpret what it all meant.

Voter initiatives suck ass.

I agree with this. Unless I completely understand what the purpose, origination and intent (the intent being the important part) of the initiative and believe in it strongly my default is to vote no. I vote for state representatives to have them do their job, not to pass the buck back to voters ever 2 years. I also never sign petitions for the very same reason.

DSGamer wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I worked as an election official this cycle and have to admit that doing so has completely soured me on the whole ballot initiative process. I confess I was never a big fan of it in the first place and think that, philosophically, it is just a mechanism for elected officials to pass the buck and/or for moneyed interests to bypass the normal political process, but this last election pretty much convinced me that the whole exercise is pretty moronic.

There were literally 12 separate ballot initiatives on the Maryland ballot this time around. Two of them were actually advertised and had money attached to either side (#'s 6 and 7 for gay marriage and table gaming). The others were mostly crap that legislators are supposed to be paid to freaking hash out in session.

Instead, it just gummed up the voting process as folks who had no freaking idea what the hell they were voting for spent 45 minutes in the booth reading up and trying to interpret what it all meant.

Voter initiatives suck ass.

I agree with this. Unless I completely understand what the purpose, origination and intent (the intent being the important part) of the initiative and believe in it strongly my default is to vote no. I vote for state representatives to have them do their job, not to pass the buck back to voters ever 2 years. I also never sign petitions for the very same reason.

Y'all's weird. Ballot initiatives are awesome. Although I admit, some of the MD ones were things I would almost expect an unelected official to decide. Your description of folks in the voting booth is like heaven to my ears. It may only be they think about society's direction for 45 minutes every two years, but I'll take what I can get.

Hmm. Has this been mentioned yet? Apparently Montana passed a bill that directly countermands Citizens United. I'm not certain how much traction this is going to have, but its an interesting development.

Initiative 166[/url]]Statement of Purpose:

Ballot initiative I-166 establishes a state policy that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings, and charges Montana elected and appointed officials, state and federal, to implement that policy. With this policy, the people of Montana establish that there should be a level playing field in campaign spending, in part by prohibiting corporate campaign contributions and expenditures and by limiting political spending in elections. Further, Montana’s congressional delegation is charged with proposing a joint resolution offering an amendment to the United States Constitution establishing that corporations are not human beings entitled to constitutional rights.

ruhk wrote:

Hmm. Has this been mentioned yet? Apparently Montana passed a bill that directly countermands Citizens United. I'm not certain how much traction this is going to have, but its an interesting development.

They previously, if memory serves, had their own very strict campaign finance laws, on account of the state's history of having its mine barons buy political office. They appealed to the Supreme Court to keep them, but were rebuffed, because apparently Scalia's State Rights beliefs end where cash begins.

Frontline and Marketplace did a very good piece on the situaton up there, which you can watch for free here.

So did Colorado legalize all Marijuana use, or just medicinal? Are they just going to enforce the Federal laws with their own forces, but allow the Feds to do whatever they want in their state?

Mixolyde wrote:

So did Colorado legalize all Marijuana use, or just medicinal? Are they just going to enforce the Federal laws with their own forces, but allow the Feds to do whatever they want in their state?

All marijuana use; likewise with WA.

Tanglebones wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

So did Colorado legalize all Marijuana use, or just medicinal? Are they just going to enforce the Federal laws with their own forces, but allow the Feds to do whatever they want in their state?

All marijuana use; likewise with WA.

The TL:DR version for WA is that as of Dec 6th, possession of up to an ounce of pot is legal, although consumption on public land is still illegal, to maintain legal parity with alcohol.

The process of setting up infrastructure for the state to license growers and operate state-run pot stores will commence imminently, but the reality of that is that we're unlikely to see those stores open for business before the back-end of of 2013, if not later. It's also unclear whether there'll be interference from the feds in this process.

The current system of medical dispensaries remains unchanged, although of course, it'll be interesting to see how their business model is affected when you can bypass the dispensary with a state-run store.

It also opens up the Hemp industry, and it'll be interesting to see where WA agriculture goes after this.

Mixolyde wrote:

So did Colorado legalize all Marijuana use, or just medicinal? Are they just going to enforce the Federal laws with their own forces, but allow the Feds to do whatever they want in their state?

edit: Beaten to the punch three times.

Medical use was already recognized. CO and WA now both legalized use for fun under 1 ounce. This is more liberal policy than even Amsterdam.

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

jonnypolite wrote:

It also opens up the Hemp industry, and it'll be interesting to see where WA agriculture goes after this.

I am one of those folks who supported legalize it more for the Hemp>Bio Fuels than anything else. You can grow it anywhere, it is a true weed. It is 97% efficient in converting it into fuel. That is astonishing. The efficiency numbers go up when you add in not having to drive and drill it out of the ground, and that Hemp is no more harmful to the environment than any other farm operation (run offs and such).

ranalin wrote:

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

I wondered about this too. However, I think that it's not going to change necessarily. Employer drug tests can also test for alcohol, but that's legal, right?

The point is they don't want you coming to work intoxicated, and that doesn't change regardless of the legality of pot.

ranalin wrote:

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

I'm sure they can still test for it, but they can't fire you for it willy nilly. Just think about it as alcohol. If you're working in a factory and get hurt, they rush you to the hospital to get a drug test immediateness. If you're under the influence, that could be grounds for dismissal.

That seems the most logical way of doing it so of course the actual process won't be anything like this.

ranalin wrote:

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

I imagine most employers would, out of necessity, show a bit more leniency. I was having a discussion with one of my managers about all of this yesterday (Washington being just across the river it's going to directly effect us), and he said that as long as people aren't showing up for work high he isn't terribly concerned about it.

Jonman wrote:
ranalin wrote:

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

I wondered about this too. However, I think that it's not going to change necessarily. Employer drug tests can also test for alcohol, but that's legal, right?

The point is they don't want you coming to work intoxicated, and that doesn't change regardless of the legality of pot.

Sort of.. Alcohol leaves your system after a few hours/day or so, marijuana sticks around for quite a while longer. It will be interesting to see how this works.

Jonman wrote:
ruhk wrote:
ranalin wrote:

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

I imagine most employers would, out of necessity, show a bit more leniency. I was having a discussion with one of my managers about all of this yesterday (Washington being just across the river it's going to directly effect us), and he said that as long as people aren't showing up for work high he isn't terribly concerned about it.

It gets a little more difficult when the drug testing is federally mandated though, right? My employer is obliged by federal law to perform random drug tests on employees in safety-sensitive roles. I don't know enough about the tests to know if they're refined enough to be able to distinguish between impaired and not impaired (e.g. came to work stoned vs had a toke on a saturday night, then came to work on Monday), or whether they're kind of a blunt instrument.

I should talk to my union rep about it - I wonder if it's been raised as an issue with the union yet.

Yeah that's a whole different ball game. I'll be interested to see what you find out.

ruhk wrote:
ranalin wrote:

So what effect does this have on employers and drug tests? Are they now not allowed to test for marijuana in those states?

I imagine most employers would, out of necessity, show a bit more leniency. I was having a discussion with one of my managers about all of this yesterday (Washington being just across the river it's going to directly effect us), and he said that as long as people aren't showing up for work high he isn't terribly concerned about it.

It gets a little more difficult when the drug testing is federally mandated though, right? My employer is obliged by federal law to perform random drug tests on employees in safety-sensitive roles. I don't know enough about the tests to know if they're refined enough to be able to distinguish between impaired and not impaired (e.g. came to work stoned vs had a toke on a saturday night, then came to work on Monday), or whether they're kind of a blunt instrument.

I should talk to my union rep about it - I wonder if it's been raised as an issue with the union yet.

EDIT - After digging through my company's policies, it looks like the federal requirement for drug testing includes an explicit reference to medical marijuana not being a get-out-of-jail-free, and you'll still be dinged if that shows up in your drug test even if it is above board. I assume the same holds true for legal recreational pot.

Jonman wrote:

It gets a little more difficult when the drug testing is federally mandated though, right? My employer is obliged by federal law to perform random drug tests on employees in safety-sensitive roles. I don't know enough about the tests to know if they're refined enough to be able to distinguish between impaired and not impaired (e.g. came to work stoned vs had a toke on a saturday night, then came to work on Monday), or whether they're kind of a blunt instrument.

I should talk to my union rep about it - I wonder if it's been raised as an issue with the union yet.

EDIT - After digging through my company's policies, it looks like the federal requirement for drug testing includes an explicit reference to medical marijuana not being a get-out-of-jail-free, and you'll still be dinged if that shows up in your drug test even if it is above board. I assume the same holds true for legal recreational pot.

As far as I know the only required drug testing for my company is when someone makes a mistake that puts a patient's safety at risk (I work for a "big pharma" biomed corporation), and aside from the employee prescreening I've never seen nor heard of any random testing at my company. We're owned by a European agency, though, so maybe they're a bit more lenient.

ruhk wrote:
Jonman wrote:

It gets a little more difficult when the drug testing is federally mandated though, right? My employer is obliged by federal law to perform random drug tests on employees in safety-sensitive roles. I don't know enough about the tests to know if they're refined enough to be able to distinguish between impaired and not impaired (e.g. came to work stoned vs had a toke on a saturday night, then came to work on Monday), or whether they're kind of a blunt instrument.

I should talk to my union rep about it - I wonder if it's been raised as an issue with the union yet.

EDIT - After digging through my company's policies, it looks like the federal requirement for drug testing includes an explicit reference to medical marijuana not being a get-out-of-jail-free, and you'll still be dinged if that shows up in your drug test even if it is above board. I assume the same holds true for legal recreational pot.

As far as I know the only required drug testing for my company is when someone makes a mistake that puts a patient's safety at risk (I work for a "big pharma" biomed corporation), and aside from the employee prescreening I've never seen nor heard of any random testing at my company. We're owned by a European agency, though, so maybe they're a bit more lenient.

If you make a worker's compensation claim you'll be taken for a drug test immediately. By law if you are found intoxicated your compensation is cut by 50%. At least that's the law in Colorado, I know it goes state by state (I used to be a restaurant manager).

ruhk wrote:
Jonman wrote:

It gets a little more difficult when the drug testing is federally mandated though, right? My employer is obliged by federal law to perform random drug tests on employees in safety-sensitive roles. I don't know enough about the tests to know if they're refined enough to be able to distinguish between impaired and not impaired (e.g. came to work stoned vs had a toke on a saturday night, then came to work on Monday), or whether they're kind of a blunt instrument.

I should talk to my union rep about it - I wonder if it's been raised as an issue with the union yet.

EDIT - After digging through my company's policies, it looks like the federal requirement for drug testing includes an explicit reference to medical marijuana not being a get-out-of-jail-free, and you'll still be dinged if that shows up in your drug test even if it is above board. I assume the same holds true for legal recreational pot.

As far as I know the only required drug testing for my company is when someone makes a mistake that puts a patient's safety at risk (I work for a "big pharma" biomed corporation), and aside from the employee prescreening I've never seen nor heard of any random testing at my company. We're owned by a European agency, though, so maybe they're a bit more lenient.

When I say federally mandated, in my employers case, that would mean the FAA and/or DoT, which aren't going to apply to the pharma world.

The requirement is for initial drug testing when the employee is hired, random drug testing of everyone in the pool of safety-sensitive roles, and drug testing whenever an incident occurs (workplace accident or a manufacturing defect/error that makes it out of the factory door undetected).

So it seems Detroit implemented non-enforcement on pot via a ballot. This only applies to the locals, sheriffs and state cops could and likely will enforce it too.

But as it stands you can lite up a J, walk past one of the cops at the Casino, blow smoke in his face, and walk on your way.

Eh, Flint only has twelve cops left anyway, and it's not like they show up if you call them with a tip. It's just a big middle finger to the man.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/7/OU290kgqHEux5ZWEu_ClEA2.jpg)