What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

marijuana winning big at the polls. CO/MASS/wash pass (1 Viewer)

Amused to Death said:
Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary

Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices, said Monday that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer make sense.

"A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government's piecemeal approach," he wrote.

His views came as the court declined to hear the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks that other businesses are allowed.

Thomas said the Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 upholding federal laws making marijuana possession illegal may now be out of date.

"Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning," he said. "The federal government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”
Click to expand...
He must have gotten his talking points from big tobacco, big pharma and big alcohol.  I guess we are all set now.

 
Amused to Death said:
Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary

Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices, said Monday that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer make sense.

"A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government's piecemeal approach," he wrote.

His views came as the court declined to hear the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks that other businesses are allowed.

Thomas said the Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 upholding federal laws making marijuana possession illegal may now be out of date.

"Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning," he said. "The federal government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”
Click to expand...
Still baffling that the Democrats haven't made this an issue at the national level.  Legalization is super-popular, so you'd think that one of the parties would have a strong incentive to claim this issue as their own.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Still baffling that the Democrats haven't made this an issue at the national level.  Legalization is super-popular, so you'd think that one of the parties would have a strong incentive to claim this issue as their own.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Perhaps a campaign issue of legalizing pot would be better than "Defund the Police". Just a thought.

As much as I support many of their issues, the Dems can be extremely frustrating in their messaging. 

 
Amused to Death said:
Completely agree. Perhaps a campaign issue of legalizing pot would be better than "Defund the Police". Just a thought.

As much as I support many of their issues, the Dems can be extremely frustrating in their messaging. 
Click to expand...
Legalizing pot would also do more to reduce systemic racism in law enforcement than any amount of "defund the police."  It's a no-brainer in the sense that it's politically popular on its own terms and it meaningfully advances one of the Democrats' major agenda items.  I want to say that this is just a Biden thing, but it's not like anybody else in the party is picking this issue up and running with it.  

 
I was searching for this thread a few months ago. Can't believe there was no discussion about the South Dakota situation.

 
BigJim® said:
I was searching for this thread a few months ago. Can't believe there was no discussion about the South Dakota situation.
Click to expand...
It's kind of ludicrous.  

For folks who are reading along, we legalized medical marijuana last fall as an initiated measure, and we also legalized recreational marijuana as a constitutional amendment.  These were two separate items on the same ballot.  The medical marijuana program starts next week, but the recreational program is currently held up at our supreme court.  Basically, our freedom-loving governor got a couple of Highway Patrol officers to sue, claiming that the adult use amendment a) violated our state's "one topic" rule, which has never been the basis for any litigation in our state before and b) amounts to a restructuring of our state government, which would require a constitutional convention and not an amendment.  Nobody raised any of these objections until after the amendment won at the ballot box.  

It seems to me that both arguments are absurd on their face, although admittedly I don't know much about case law in either area so maybe there's some legitimacy there that I'm not getting.  Regardless, it's pretty annoying.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's kind of ludicrous.  

For folks who are reading along, we legalized medical marijuana last fall as an initiated measure, and we also legalized recreational marijuana as a constitutional amendment.  These were two separate items on the same ballot.  The medical marijuana program starts next week, but the recreational program is currently held up at our supreme court.  Basically, our freedom-loving governor got a couple of Highway Patrol officers to sue, claiming that the adult use amendment a) violated our state's "one topic" rule, which has never been the basis for any litigation in our state before and b) amounts to a restructuring of our state government, which would require a constitutional convention and not an amendment.  Nobody raised any of these objections until after the amendment won at the ballot box.  

It seems to me that both arguments are absurd on their face, although admittedly I don't know much about case law in either area so maybe there's some legitimacy there that I'm not getting.  Regardless, it's pretty annoying.  
Click to expand...
And unless I remember wrong, engineered for that complaint against the ballot initiative to be ruled upon by a judge Noem had seated. 

 
Cowboy Dan said:
I don’t understand. Why wouldn’t the decision go to the whole SD Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
It did.  First it went to some circuit court judge, who ruled in favor of the officers on both primary arguments.  The sponsors of the amendment appealed, and then it went to the SD supreme court.  The case was argued there back in April but it takes a long time for the state supreme court to rule on anything.  

I don't think anybody attaches much weight to the ruling by the first judge.  We all "knew" that this would go to our supreme court eventually when it was litigated.

Also, however the court rules probably won't end things.  If the court rules against the adult use amendment, the sponsors will probably be back in 2022 or 2024 with something that addresses whatever defects were found in this amendment, and it will probably pass again.  If the court upholds the amendment, Noem and the legislature will do everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into the process.  Lots of states have severely screwed up legalization without deliberately trying (I'm looking at you, Illinois) so I'm positive that Noem can ruin things if she puts some effort into it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Also, however the court rules probably won't end things.  If the court rules against the adult use amendment, the sponsors will probably be back in 2022 or 2024 with something that addresses whatever defects were found in this amendment, and it will probably pass again.  If the court upholds the amendment, Noem and the legislature will do everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into the process.  Lots of states have severely screwed up legalization without deliberately trying (I'm looking at you, Illinois) so I'm positive that Noem can ruin things if she puts some effort into it.  
Click to expand...
Maybe, but my understanding of the Legal argument was such an initiative that had implication beyond single subject would not be a candidate for voter initiative. It may be that the court concludes that marijuana and hemp are germane for a single initiative, but if it concludes professional licensing, taxation, civil penalties, law enforcement, health services, etc, etc (i.e. the various impacted government functions) cannot be lumped together in a single initiative, then that would inhibit any efforts to use this path to legalization. It seems crazy, as nearly any voter initiative in theory has cascading implications.

 
BigJim® said:
Maybe, but my understanding of the Legal argument was such an initiative that had implication beyond single subject would not be a candidate for voter initiative. It may be that the court concludes that marijuana and hemp are germane for a single initiative, but if it concludes professional licensing, taxation, civil penalties, law enforcement, health services, etc, etc (i.e. the various impacted government functions) cannot be lumped together in a single initiative, then that would inhibit any efforts to use this path to legalization. It seems crazy, as nearly any voter initiative in theory has cascading implications.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's why I can't see the courts buying that interpretation of what a "single subject" is -- it would essentially invalidate all voter initiatives and all legislation.  

If they do go that route, I hope the next constitutional amendment is a one-sentence bomb like "Cannabis is legal in the state of South Dakota."  We tried the let's-do-this-in-an-orderly-fashion approach, so now it's time for the throw-open-the-barn-doors strategy.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yeah, but that's why I can't see the courts buying that interpretation of what a "single subject" is -- it would essentially invalidate all voter initiatives and all legislation.  
Click to expand...
Is that true? You seem more familiar, but I thought the rule required those sorts of initiatives to go through legislation... which in theory would be contemplating cascading government implications in ways a voter could not(?)

 
BigJim® said:
Is that true? You seem more familiar, but I thought the rule required those sorts of initiatives to go through legislation... which in theory would be contemplating cascading government implications in ways a voter could not(?)
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.  My fault.  

 
Rich Conway said:
Well, this is interesting.  Preliminary, but interesting.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/schumer-marijuana-proposal/index.html
Click to expand...
The Senate Majority Leader noted, however, "this is going to be a process. This is a draft bill. We intend to show it to all of the stakeholders. We don't have the votes necessary at this point, but we have a large majority of our caucus for it. We're going to show it to the others and say well what don't you like, what do you like, and we'll see if we can get the support."

This is something that's popular across party lines. Hopefully they can get a bipartisan bill passed and get Biden on board. As others have pointed out (sorry, I forget who) this is a winning position that Dems should make a priority. Its certainly more popular than "defund the police".

 
:lmao:

And I missed this

“It’s like they saw ‘Reefer Madness’ in middle school and never got over it,” Raskin said. “I concede our party is not for the kind of cocaine-fueled orgies that a freshman Republican representative bragged about this week – but we do understand that their marijuana prohibition laws don’t work for our people.”

 
the moops said:
Yet only 3 republicans voted for the bill. Here is a sampling of their reasoning

“The last thing we need is more addictive behavior-altering drugs in this country,” Rep Bob Good (R-Va.)

“Every major urban area has increased crime and Democrats are legalizing drugs and propping up the marijuana industry,” Rep. Jim Jordan

(R-Ohio) said on the House floor.
Click to expand...


Well, he's right.  :shrug:

 
the moops said:
Yet only 3 republicans voted for the bill. Here is a sampling of their reasoning

“The last thing we need is more addictive behavior-altering drugs in this country,” Rep Bob Good (R-Va.)

“Every major urban area has increased crime and Democrats are legalizing drugs and propping up the marijuana industry,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said on the House floor.
Click to expand...
Party of freedom strikes again

 
BladeRunner said:
Well, he's right.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
Yes, the democrats are hoping to legalize marijuana. One drug, not drugs.

And what is wrong with propping up a booming venture in the marijuana industry? Are those entrepreneurs not entitled to the same governmental support as others?

 
the moops said:
Yes, the democrats are hoping to legalize marijuana. One drug, not drugs.

And what is wrong with propping up a booming venture in the marijuana industry? Are those entrepreneurs not entitled to the same governmental support as others?
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, I'm AGAINST legalization of marijuana for all but doctor approved medicinal purposes, not recreational.

 
Gopher State said:
We know the senate will not pass it.  I am for it especially with a nice federal tax added to it.  AZ collected about 100 million last year in pot taxes, it is an excellent source of revenue.
Click to expand...


As long as you don't over tax the product (Canada is having this issue where companies can't turn a profit) you could really have a boon of Federal spending dollars.  It's getting close.    

 
Snotbubbles said:
As long as you don't over tax the product (Canada is having this issue where companies can't turn a profit) you could really have a boon of Federal spending dollars.  It's getting close.    
Click to expand...
In AZ rec pot taxed 21.6 while medical  5.6.  I under stand that the federal law would tax it between 5-8 percent.

 
the moops said:
I think of you as a pretty big "gov't stay out of my business" sort of guy. Curious why you are capital letters AGAINST legalized marijuana
Click to expand...


Marijuana, IMO, breeds laziness and apathy - especially in our youth.  We don't need more problems, we need less.

I also consider it a gateway drug.

 
General Malaise said:
I agree that abuse of alcohol is bad.   But I think the gateway theory in general is bunk. 
Click to expand...


That's fine.   We can agree to disagree - I just think those who are willing to do marijuana are more agreeable to or can be more easily influenced to try the harder stuff.   That whole "drug" personality is a thing, IMO.

 
KarmaPolice said:
Abuse, sure.  

Do you think there is a huge difference between me chilling with 2-3 beers vs having a puff or two of some Face Mints? 
Click to expand...


Aside from the fact that you're over 20 years old and still doing marijuana?  In isolation and just comparing the two, probably not.

The problem is we already have problems with alcohol, I don't want to legalize yet another drug to add to the already numerous issues we have regarding drugs in this country.

 
BladeRunner said:
Marijuana, IMO, breeds laziness and apathy - especially in our youth.  We don't need more problems, we need less.

I also consider it a gateway drug.
Click to expand...


coffee? Beer? Cigs?

It's only a "gateway drug" if you draw your line at what's legal right now. Nicotine, caffeine, alcohol... all drugs. I'm pretty sure almost all hard drug abusers started with one of those DRUGS before weed. 

 
the moops said:
Yet only 3 republicans voted for the bill. Here is a sampling of their reasoning

“The last thing we need is more addictive behavior-altering drugs in this country,” Rep Bob Good (R-Va.)

“Every major urban area has increased crime and Democrats are legalizing drugs and propping up the marijuana industry,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said on the House floor.
Click to expand...
Fools 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
470
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
931
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
WSJ: Democrats Suddenly Discover POTUS Joe Biden Is 79 Years Old (7/8/22 17:51 PST)
Replies
48
Views
1K
Prinefan
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top