"Skeptical federal authorities are also paying attention. Although marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the Justice Department has given a tentative approval for Colorado and Washington to move ahead with regulating marijuana. But it warned that federal officials could intervene if the state regulations failed to keep the drug away from children, drug cartels or federal property, and out of other states."
I have a feeling there are going to be people who ruin it for everyone else.
The "out of other states" part is what is obviously going to do it. It's just like guns, you can't keep guns out of one state if you can buy them freely in a neighbouring state. It's the same thing here.
The surrounding states are already awash with cannabis (even and especially Utah). Right-thinking people just have to keep browbeating the prohibitionists back into their corners until they can't do anything any more. I'm the first person to try to appeal to another's sense of logic, but logic is obviously not what the Prohibitionists are operating on.
Prohibition has failed, failed spectacularly and expensively and there is simply no room to try some sort of half-measure to appease those that think it can still work. These sorts of people simply need to understand that their opinion doesn't matter at all and will be completely discounted, sad to say.
Yeah, I like Colorado's legislation because you can grow some if you want to, or you can just go and pay a business that pays taxes for some high-quality stuff without all the work if that's what you want.
The rest of the West should just go ahead, they're already there.
Well it's a little different than guns. (Old man voice) "They don't grow on trees, you know!"
If it's couched in terms of black/white:pass/fail for keeping it out of other states then it's doomed to fail and the DOJ will come down hard. But Colorado shouldn't be in charge of watching the movement of stuff that's legal to own and sell inside it's jurisdiction. It's duty is to regulate how to own and sell inside the same area. Period. It would, however, be the job of neighbouring states that didn't want it to spill over to maintain their borders appropriately and of course it falls on individual citizens to respect the borders.
Where it differs from guns is, unlike Supreme Court reasoning to the contrary, if there was adequate intrastate supply b/c of the ability to maintain personal plants then interstate exchange shouldn't be much of an issue anymore (obviously that's a gradual process).
Potter the commerce clause, it is actually the federal government's job to ensure the drugs don't cross state lines. Hence the Justice department's insistence.
Except the federal govt's job would be complete if it allowed intrastate commerce. It's circular. Marijuana isn't a scheduled drug b/c it needs to be kept out of interstate commerce. It's part of interstate commerce b/c it's a scheduled drug for some other reason or reasons that don't really make a great deal of sense.
Yes, it would be really nice if people and journalists commenting on this would understand and acknowledge that cannabis has been widely available legally in Colorado for years, both through legal home growing and at retail outlets.
I think it will change the patterns for some demographics more than others. Most people in the demographic where use is heaviest, college students, have had no problem finding cannabis in Colorado for at least 20 or 30 years now, and particularly in the past few years with the medical dispensaries. Anyone who wanted to could go get a red card for $160 and then shop at any of the numerous dispensaries around the state, in addition to the ample black-market opportunities to purchase such goods. I think that people in certain circles such as older people will find it a lot easier to obtain cannabis now, and that will change their usage patterns. It will be interesting to see how it develops as it goes from niche cultures to more mainstream… If that happens.
I am objecting to reporters and people commenting as if situations regarding cannabis use are novel, for instance some people are saying "what will we do now that there will be stoned to drivers on the streets?" We already have stoned drivers on the streets in every state and have for at least 20 or 30 years, and there have been laws against that in place all around the country as well. Another example, people discussing cannabis exportation from Colorado to neighboring states… That has already been going on and Colorado has had more availability than neighboring states such as Wyoming and Nebraska for a long time, predating the medical situation. It's true that since the medical laws were passed, larger grow operations have been located in Colorado. A couple of years ago a ring with dozens of houses sending 10 pounds at a time all over the country through FedEx was broken up in Denver. I do think this law will further embolden people if you want to grow cannabis for the black market, but on the other hand I sort of think that anyone who wants to do that already is.
It's also worth noting that California has had highly liberalized laws regarding this for years and for some reason that doesn't get much attention. You can go to Norcal and grow dozens of plants on your land and sell them for a large profits legally without anyone batting an eye.
Not as a noticeable percentage of total usage. There will obviously be some drug tourism, but mostly for the novelty, since no one who wants marijuana in the US can't get it easily and relatively risk-free.
Truth is, every law is based on people who ruin it for everybody else. That is how marijuana got outlawed in the first place. People has this belief that we are somehow rewarded for passing thousands of new laws every year. The resulting authoritarian society is just the unintended consequence. Nobody actually picks authoritarianism on purpose.
Dig a little deeper on the history of anti-cannabis laws, and you'll find they're rooted primarily in fear of Mexicans and blacks. Sometimes authoritarianism is the goal, not the side effect.
People has this belief that we are somehow rewarded for passing thousands of new laws every year.
The people in Congress are called "lawmakers." That's the problem right there. Even if society were to reach an ideal 100% perfect state, they'd still need to pass more laws to justify their jobs, so we'd soon be broken again.
> Truth is, every law is based on people who ruin it for everybody else.
On the contrary, I think only unreasonable laws are based on people who ruin it for everybody else. Law banning murder and theft, for example, are reasonable and could exist in a world without murder and theft without effecting anyone. However, laws banning firearms or lock picks are unreasonable, and if implemented in a world without murder and theft would effect many people.
"federal property" - I'm sure the TSA at DIA will be stepping up their pot detection and nail plenty of unsuspecting tourists. I wonder if Colorado will put up a sign going towards the airport reminding people of federal law.
I would be more concerned about federal authorities going in regardless of how well state regulations are working, just because some far-right politician needs to show voters how tough-on-crime he is.
I have a feeling there are going to be people who ruin it for everyone else.