Re: Speaking of not good
 

I don't either. I certainly hope it's not politically motivated, as an attempt to look like he's moving to the "center." Both because I think that would be stupid politically, ineffective and disappointingly cynical.

But I can't think of any way this makes sense.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

And.... you really don't understand?

What did you get a prescription for?

Leave aside that big-time marijuana dealers are not exactly the most wonderful folk (the 60s being long over, and Weeds being fiction). Do you think the Obama Admin has a vested interest in not suggesting that states can decide when to ignore federal law? Particularly when a state's rationale is "health" based?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Seriously?

The medical marijuana law had some good aspects, but it's been subject to ridiculous abuse.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

do states tax med weed? I hope they tax the shit out of it.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Which means it's wise for Obama/Holder to back track on prior statements to direct resources toward an already failed war on drugs?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Exactly. And to direct resources to something that the people of the state have decided they want.

What I read is that they were targeting for profit Med Pot dealers. Under CA law, you can't distribute for profit, but you can distribute as a collective (or something like that). But in going after the for profit guys, they have sent notices to all landlords that basically says that if they don't shut down their tenants, the Fed will confiscate the landlord's building per the Fed drug laws.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I don't have a prescription and haven't smoked in prolly a decade. But I am 100% in favor of legalization and think the G should tax the shit out of it. Talking about balancing the budgets . . .

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Why start honoring shit he said to get elected now?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Obama and Holder promised not to go after major marijuana distributors who abused a questionable state law?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

They said they were going to stay out of it if people were complying with state law. Which everyone read as they will stay out of it.

Now it seems they meant what they said about the state law bit. I'm not sure why they think enforcing state law is their bailiwick, but I do know it looks bad politically and is a questionable use of resources.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Right after Bahrain's and Pakistan's. Realpolitik is real, and stinks. Where is my German passport?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

So, when you were criticizing Obama and Holder for "back track[ing] on earlier statements," you meant to criticize them for "doing what they said they would do, but in a way that is inconsistent with what I assumed they actually meant and what I will claim "everyone" understood."

Got it.



They aren't enforcing state law. They are enforcing federal law. They were willing to make a narrow exception, and to exercise prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the federal law against people who were complying with the medical marijuana law. But once people blew that -- once people started treating state law as a blank check to ignore the federal drug law -- they clamped down.

I'm not particularly anti-legalization, nor particularly pro-legalization. What I don't like is the backdoor approach to legalization -- we'll pretend that it's for medical use, but really it's throwing the doors open..... but, because it's still illegal, we're unable to regulate it in the ways that are needed. If people want to legalize, we should discuss legalization.

As for questionable use of resources, I'd give it about a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 for federal spending.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Yes, because how change happens is everyone just gets in a circle and talks about it and hen 50% of the group changes their mind and viola! new policy.

Or, in other words, yeah, it's be great to just "talk about" legalizing it, but the "back door" is how social change actually happens.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Can you give me an example of a controlled substance becoming generally legal after a few years of being available for medical use? If that's "how social change actually happens," you should be able to. Assuming you can't point to any such thing, then what other example of "social change" do you think is analogous to this?

Social change often happens incrementally, but there is a difference between incrementalism and false pretext. Medical pot has largely been the latter.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

This is stupid and you know it.

See, told you.

There is?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

They are enforcing federal law in an area that traditionally has been primary regulated by the states and in states where the state does not appear to have a strong interest in enforcement.

Are you just making a process argument here?

The policy of drug enforcement is a total failure and has been a total failure for generations. The toll the drug war has taken on this country far outweighs the purported paternalistic benefits. We have wasted countless dollars, strained our prison systems, destroyed countless families (especially low income), criminally branded countless men, perpetuated criminal lifestyles, supported the rise of criminal empires, etc., and have not made even a tiny dent in the problem. All for something that is not per se immoral.

It is quite likely the most asinine policy ever.

Here's a thought. Maybe we regulate it, tax it (yes, I said it), put money behind rehab treatment centers, unburden our prison systems and, most importantly, return some civil liberties to our citizens.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Translation: You have no support for your statement. When you declared how social change happens, you were as full of shit as you were when you said Obama and Holder were backtracking on what they said (by, uh, doing exactly what they said).


Now, this is stupid.




Yes, there is. If the goal is broad-based legalization of pot, you don't get to that goal by treating pot as a prescription medicine. Opiates have been used for medicine for how long? And where are they generally legal?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Drug law has not traditionally been regulated by the state. Not even close.


No, a substance argument. I think people have this fuzzy-eyed notion of what big-time pot dealers are like -- remember people (Adder?) whining on the FB about the notion that a person who discovered a pot farm in a national park might call the police about it?

Medical pot has been a farce. Rather than creating an avenue for the legitimate use of pot as a treatment device, which it really could be, it's become a front. I'd rather pot use were broadly legal and intelligently regulated, but the middle-position is ridiculous.



I'm perfectly happy with your last paragraph.

On the earlier paragraphs -- med pot appears to be contributing to the criminal empire thing, not taking away from it.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

That's the unfortunate thing. You read accounts of people who are undergoing chemo, none of the antinausea drugs work for them, and pot is the only way they can eat and keep their strength up.

And then there's my uncle's on/off partner who has a prescription and there's nothing wrong with him (other than being an ass but the pot doesn't seem to change that). Seems like a medical marijuana statute should have some more objective guidelines for who gets a prescription.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I see this very similar to the gay rights and gay marriage movements. Once the issue got to the political level, mindsets began to change. It took some time to get initiatives on the ballot, but slowly but surely they did. Then it took some time to pass them in, but slowly but surely they passed. All along, the public became more tolerant and accepting. Then the Fed stepped in, again to an area that historically has been in the purview of the states, and tried to fuck things up. But it was too late. The people (of many states at least) had moved beyond. Now we are just wasting time and money and fucking with the rights and lives of people.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I see where your confusion comes in. You think someone is arguing that being legal for prescriptions causes general legalization. No one is arguing that.

But stuff that the general public thinks is bad quite often becomes less bad in the collective public mind after exposure and the realization that the world doesn't end. Think about things like integration and gay rights. Or maybe pre-marital sex and cohabitation.

That exposure also offers the opportunity to contrast the harms of availability with the harms of prohibition, making it clearer that prohibition is itself extremely costly.

But if you want examples more directly on point, because you insist on being a pointy head a-hole, feel free to read up on Portugal and the Netherlands.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

It was a state park. And yes, I still see no reason to call the police when you find a few (it wasn't that many) pot plants in the middle of a giant open wilderness.

Why, because it violates your inherent sense of order?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Or we could quit pretending that prohibition does anything but keep the law abiding people undergoing chemo for using it.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I didn't mean to suggest that the Fed doesn't regulate it, but I would bet that a large majority of all arrests are done by state and local, not the Fed.

Do you realize how ironic this is? I am not fuzzy-eyed at all. The reason why pot dealers are on the shadier side is because dealing is illegal. Have you ever been to a med pot pharmacy? While not exactly as pristine as your local pharmacy, it is must less seedy than trying to buy from some dealer.

The middle position is the stepping stone. We will never go directly from illegal to legal. Why does the middle position trouble you so much?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

The social change happened long ago. Even right wing people under 50 agree marijuana prohibition is silly, and the stigma of using it only exists superficially because of zero tolerance policies rotely enforced by employers. (Corporate America moves ten years behind social mores, and is run by older people who still see pot as a problematic thing. In turn, people who'd joke about using it, or support its legalization, keep that to themselves in mixed company for fear it would hurt their career.)

What we have today is a prohibition long past its sell-by date.

I agree with you entirely, however, on the argument medical marijuana is a transparent pretext. It's silly, and it ducks the real debate no one wants to engage, and a fact nobody in charge wants to admit:

Marijuana is de facto legal, and used recreationally by enormous numbers of highly educated, successful Americans with absolutely no adverse side effects... few of whom are counted in the government-collected data. Given its widespread acceptance and the monstrous market for it, you can get marijuana almost anywhere, almost any time. And the only users who get arrested for it are the sorts who don't have safe connections from which to purchase it. Read: The Poor.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I can't speak for Sidd, but I find it annoying. I find it another attempt to intellectually coddle Americans, to allow them to avoid thinking constructively about an issue adults should examine based on data, rather than hysterical misinformation.

It's our society's refusal to address an issue head on, with honest appraisal of the data, that's destroyed this country. We've a nation of people largely incapable of simple, basic analysis. Every policy change has to be some sleazy connivance like medical marijuana. Every solution to a budget issue has to be some dressed up form of kick-the-can-down-the-road. No real decisions. No adult debates. A country of children.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Well, we actually went and elected an adult as President, and what he's been taught over the last three years is that you can only "win" if you play like the other children. I think the narrative is a nation upset that they're being told cures have costs and medicine doesn't always taste good.

Let me know if you see any ways for me to further overextend your metaphor. It really can't be stretched far enough.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Well it's annoying to me too, but the honest debate you want will never happen without slow, incremental steps.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I think that what's happening with marijuana is counter-productive to actual legalization and regulation. You have what is supposed to be a carefully regulated state system, where pot is available only based on legitimate prescriptions. In fact, it's a joke and everyone knows it.

Given that experience, anyone who argues that you can legalize pot, and have its use controlled in a sensible manner (not sold to kids, regulations on use to avoid or limit health effects on non-smokers, growth and distribution not controlled by criminals) is not credible, because even what was to be a very limited openness has turned into a circus.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I'll respond to Club, who actually wants to have a discussion instead of being an asshole.

I'll leave you to ponder, and maybe explain, how Obama doing exactly what he said -- prosecute under federal laws only if people violated the state laws allowing very limited distribution -- constituted back-tracking.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

2. The same damned thing can be said for immigration.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

I disagree. I think the cynical nature of the medical marijuana pretext is one of the big reasons for the problems you describe, and not the drug itself. The current system has no legitimacy. People know anybody can get a dispensary card, and can carry ludicrous amounts as personal use, and so it's viewed as a joke.

Were the drug instead regulated like alcohol, you would see a much more thoughtful framework applied to its distribution and sale. What's needed is a seriousness about regulation of the drug, and that will only come if we have a serious debate acknowledging:

1. It is used a lot;
2. There is no way to stop use of a drug so widely enjoyed; and
3. The state, rather than a ragtag group of largely self-policing dispensaries, should control distribution.

There's a tax benefit argument to also include in the debate, but that's for another discussion.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

In large part because no part of the production and distribution would be illegal.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

was handed a flyer the other day claiming the NYC police have dramatically increased small quantity pot busts over the last few years.

and someone answer me- do states or cities tax med-pot distributors?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

It's amazing your governor is getting killed in the polls not because of the 100 policies on which he's dead wrong and irretrievably backward, but for the two issues on which he offered sensible, pragmatic policies. (The other being then HPV shot thing.)

Re: Speaking of not good
 

FWIW (and I say this as a very occasional marijuana user), I think there is a pretty adverse side effect in marijuana use in that the border between the US and Mexico is a fucking war zone. Used to be that a trip across the border was a safe, fun thing to do when visiting relatives down in the Valley. Now, not even locals who have been living in the area for generations go across. "Safe" cities like Guanajuato are now dangerous. (My future mother-in-law left two and a half years ago, right as it was starting to get bad.) Yes, the cartels are dealing in more than just pot, but it's a huge percentage of their business. Doesn't matter if you got it from your regular dealer who never got past "donde esta la biblioteca" in Spanish class. If it's from Mexico or beyond, it's tainted and not worth consuming, as far as I'm concerned. Buy American.

ETA: Buy American.

Re: Speaking of not good
 

That's an old Giuliani "cleaning" tactic. Whenever the police start crackdowns on personal marijuana use, you should read, "City decides there are too many poor people hanging around Manhattan in plain view; decides to incentivize them against it using threats of time in Rikers."

Re: Speaking of not good
 

That dovetails with Adder's last point: The best thing we can do is put the illegal production stream out of business. And the best way to do that is to let regulated tax-paying producers take over. Both here and in Mexico.

(Another good reason to avoid Mexican is it seems to always be strong sativa, which is fun, but also gets you hyper and loony. Indica's a much more pleasant strain. You're dumber than you would be post-sativa, true, but there's no urge to jabber like you're wired. On balance, a more preferable state.)

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Can it really be regulated and taxed like alcohol? It seems like it'd be easy for folks to grow their own plants at home. And are the kinds of folks who currently grow/import it illegally going to just say "oh well, it was nice income while it lasted" when they don't qualify for a grower's or importer's license?

Re: Speaking of not good
 

Exactly. But until it is legal/regulated marijuana users, no matter how harmless they (we) look, are supporting a pretty bloody industry. A lot of the same folks would gasp in horror at the idea of buying a blood diamond (antique sapphire, thankyouverymuch), but toke up at the first bud they're offered (homegrown in a buddy's back yard, at least that's what he said when he gave it to us as a thank you for the Raiders ticket).

Oh yeah, the quality is crap, but it's cheap as hell, which is why it's all over the damned place. Especially down here, dunno about the rest of the country.