Three US states poised to legalise cannabis and defy 'war on drugs'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Observer

Three US states poised to legalise cannabis and defy 'war on drugs'
Washington, Oregon and Colorado set to allow recreational use
Joanna Walters
The Observer, Saturday 3 November 2012 13.15 EDT

Three US states are set to legalise recreational cannabis use this week in votes that could have major implications for the country's war on drugs.

Alongside their choice for president, residents of Washington, Oregon and Colorado – a swing state – will be asked on Tuesday whether they want to decriminalise cannabis.

If the measures are passed, adults over 21 would be able to possess, distribute and use small amounts. Cannabis for authorised medical use is already permitted and regulated by each state, even though it is against federal law.

Support is particularly strong in Washington and Colorado, but a "yes" vote in any of the states would be interpreted by the Department of Justice as an act of defiance against the federal government's war on drugs – the national law enforcement programme that spends $44bn a year struggling to stem the tide of illegal drugs in the US.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/03/states-poised-to-legalise-cannabis

[ChaoticTrilby]

1. Hell, yes.

Washington is moving forward. I am proud of my home state - and for good reason! The "war on drugs" doesn't seem much more winnable than Vietnam did, so it's about time we pulled out, I think.

[byeya]

3. I am proud of your home state too! Only in 1937 was it made illegal in what many thoughtful

observers declare was an anti-Latino and anti-Black and anti-freethinking vote.

[eggplant]

14. Yup, but that's only half the story.

One of the reasons it was criminalized was to oppress Browns and Blacks in the southwest. The other was because legal hemp would have had a huge impact on paper production (Hearst invested heavily in paper for his papers) and Nylon (DuPont used it to produce rope).

[boppers]

42. It's a very old story.

Opium was criminalized to suppress Asians, for example...

[nolabear]

4. I'm a Southern expat living in Seattle for many years and this I love!

Good on us!!

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. I'm a Seattle ex-pat living in the South for many years

and I love it too!!!!!
( Wasn't it clever how nolabear and I switched places so there would be no imbalance of "the force" in either state?)

[countryjake]

41. Yes, very cute...lets see if we can get even more balance...

since I'm a Midwestern country jake living in the sticks of Northwest Washington for many many years and I am so loving the TWO huge steps forward that my adopted state is about to make this election day, by defying the federal war on drugs AND legalizing the right to marry for ALL!!

[classykaren]

6. I think that is the only form of Birth control under Rmoney

[RussBLib]

2. please please make it happen!

I think I'll be visiting my sister in Telluride a bit more often!

RussBLib

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Correction: War on Some Drugs. Nicotine & alcohol (both deadly, highly addictive) are A-OK with govt

[boppers]

43. We tried making alcohol illegal once before.

It was about as successful.

[felix_numinous]

7. Watch these state economies boom.

Show how it's done!!

[Lucinda]

8. It's about time.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. The initiatives are leading in CO and WA, but not in OR

Still, if one or more states legalize marijuana this will be historic. It won't be the end of pot prohibition, but it will be the beginning of the end.

[NYC Liberal]

11. Yep. It has to start somewhere. Just like marriage equality is slowly but surely expanding,

in the coming years the same will happen with decriminalization/legalization of marijuana.

And hopefully just as more Dem leaders are supporting marriage equality, more will hopefully start getting on board opposing the insane drug laws/war.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. I only saw one poll here in Oregon, but it was months ago.

I believe it was losing about 55-45. Not insurmountable, and there might be a bias to lie about admitting you support something currently illegal. My guess is that slightly more will favor it in the privacy of a ballot vs. talking on the phone to a pollster you just met.

And I can't believe I agree with Tom Tancredo about something:

Tom Tancredo, a former Colorado Republican congressman, argues that prohibition of alcohol did not work in the 1920s – consumption flourished, as did violence and extortion. He said: "Cannabis can be used safely and responsibly by adults. Limited law enforcement resources should not be wasted on this, they should be used on preventing crimes that harm others."

[davidpdx]

27. I believe the Oregon measure will fail

The one in Colorado has a good chance of passing.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. We shall see.

Everyone on the radio is saying it's behind, but it's all based on that one poll months ago.

[davidpdx]

56. It seems like it's harder to get an idea if a ballot measure will pass

and it sounds like not much polling has been done. I wish the one in Oregon had been written similar to the Colorado measure.

[boppers]

45. The OR law could kill the industry,

Same reason it failed in CA: There are too many people's livelihoods on the line.

Growers don't want the competition, nor do pharmacists, or the alcohol lobby, or the dealers.

[NYC Liberal]

10. K&R

[crunch60]

13. Alcohol is a dangerous drug for many, WEED is not! nt

[boppers]

46. A screwed up driver, is a screwed up driver.

Pretending that weed doesn't mess with people's thinking skills has been a self-defeating strategy.

[eyewall]

15. I voted for it in Oregon

[daleo]

16. My niece in Seattle will get a lot of visitors, if this passes

I wonder how the federal government will respond. The usual "states' rights" people will probably be in a quandary.

[green for victory]

17. if WA 502 "legalizes" cannabis why is it going to be a felony to grow a single plant?

If 502 passes the state will *totally* control the Cannabis market for a long time to come.

How does "legalize" become Felony?

502 is a LEO Trojan horse, read it carefully.

If you are 20 years old and caught with 4 grams=No Change
(except for higher insurance rates for the unlucky parents)

if you are 22 and caught with 36 grams = NO CHANGE

if you grow a single plant-FELONY (much worse than existing law)

And if you love this plant and freedom, you'd better hope it doesn't pass in WA or this state run clusterfark just might come to your state

I-502 THE NEW APPROACH TO PROHIBITION - VOTE NO ON I-502
http://www.nooni502.com/wordpress/

Ed Rosenthal: "...Washingtonians deserve better – not worse. 502 continues the war."
http://edrosenthal.com/2012/10/alison-holcomb.html

Ed Rosenthal might know a thing or 2 about Cannabis...

Why You Should Vote No On I-502
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/08/why_you_should_vote_no_on_i-502.php

"...I-502 only decriminalizes possession of an ounce or less of cannabis and only applies to adults, 21 and older, who purchase cannabis from a state licensed store with heavy taxes.

We can't allow this initiative to set national standards for other legalization initiatives in other states, nor can we stand by and allow it to pass, knowing the years of trouble it will take to try and fix this terrible initiative. Meanwhile, many patients will lose their driving rights and be forced back to the black market for medicine.

...Puts cannabis under the state liquor control board.
What do they know about medicine? Since there are no exemptions in I-502 to medical cannabis, it would fall under a state agency that only knows how to sell recreational drugs to the public.

[joshcryer]

25. Citation please for single plant = felony?

I have not heard of this. If this is true then it is egregious.

edit: I read all your links and didn't see that cite in there.

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. Under current state law, cultivation is a felony. The initiative doesn't change that.

The initiative doesn't allow for personal cultivation. This is one of several aspects of I-502 that organizers put in the initiative to woo non pot-head supporters. Under this initiative, pot cultivation will be state-regulated and sales done through a state monopoly, like the way Washington handled alcohol until very recently. That's why the initiative directs the state liquor board to run the program.

There is also a per se drugged driving provision (like the one thrice rejected in the Colorado legislature) that has the ultras very unhappy. I don't like it, either, but I don't see it being applied widely.

Some of the movement opposition is coming from ultras or purists, who won't be happy with anything less than unregulated legalization, but much of it is coming from the state's medical marijuana community, and not for noble reasons.

[joshcryer]

38. Thanks Grumpy, that clears it up.

It sounds like they're doing it how Bolivia wants to legalize drugs (state monopoly). This is a crummy way to go about it and obviously for personal cultivation one plant (or even ten plants) shouldn't be a felony. I just had the impression that the new legislation was making it a felony which would've surely sent flags up on my radar!

The blood testing for driving thing is insane, of course, and I do think it will disproportionately affect minorities more than anyone else.

[JanT]

19. i'm proud of washington

i voted to legalize. have always thought it was stupid for it to be illegal. wasted money, time, effort and lives.
i also voted to allow same sex marriage. so i do hope that the two pass and we can move on.

[dixiegrrrrl]

54. Legalizing versus "decriminalizing" are 2 different things.

According to the above comments, the inititiative would make pot profitable for the state, via taxes and price,
( a monopoly) but still criminalize individuals growing or possessing their own pot.

Interesting that the state is now seeing the financial advantage to taxing pot.
But adding pot to the same state monopoly the exists for tobacco and booze, I can't agree with.

[pediatricmedic]

20. Doesn't change anything, still a federal crime

You can also bet local LE will continue to work with federal officers in the war on drugs as well.

[Trajan]

23. Yeah ... That's the problem ...

Perhaps it's through actions at the State level that will bring the federal government to it's senses and reverse their unreasonable enforcement policies ? ... Let's hope so ....

[joshcryer]

24. That will cause a lot of lawsuits. Law enforcement ignoring the state constitution?

Yes it'll go Federal eventually (and who knows which way it'll go then).

But the initial lawsuits will make local law enforcement take pause. They will be numerous.

[BigDemVoter]

22. and Arkansas (Yes, Arkansas!) has medical cannabis on the ballot. . .

I don't think it will pass, but AT LEAST it made it onto the ballot, and THAT is a great start!

[backtoblue]

61. i don't know that it won't pass

i live in a verrryyy red district and even the most conservative "grown-ups" have been saying they'll vote for medicinal use. the elderly have been surprisingly supportive of this bill and openly talking about it. it makes me smile when an 80 year old ring wing voter says they support the consumption of marijuana. to make it even more astounding is that i live in a rural, very opinionated area where they still call people "hippies" as a slur.

this could be a very close ballot.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. This is inaccurate:

". . . on the president's side. Obama has taken a soft line on medical cannabis use."

The Obama administration has closed more MM facilities down than George W. ever did. By a LOT.

[randome]

28. That's only because a lot more opened up.

Which means a lot more were violating the law.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Despite Candidate Obama's

promise NOT to make cannabis prosecution a priority. Juxtaposed with not one bankster responsible for bringing down this nation's, and the world's economy is in prison. I have a long memory.

[boppers]

47. Prosecution for tax evasion is not the same as arrest for possession.

Most dispensaries I heard about raids on were running in violation of numerous state *and* federal laws.

[Le Taz Hot]

52. And many were not.

These raids were indiscriminate.

[boppers]

63. Care to name a few examples?

I'm fairly certain I can find the charge sheets and related public records.

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. You never give up, do you?

Under the direction of the Ogden memo from the DOJ, prosecutors pretty much left dispensaries along in the first couple of years of the Obama administration. That changed under the Cole memo in 2011, which gave prosecutors a green light to go after dispensaries.

That was a policy shift by the administration. It was NOT because "a lot more were violating the law." Many, in fact the great majority, of dispensaries shut down in states like California, Colorado, and Montana were IN COMPLIANCE with state laws.

To try to pretend that the Obama administration did not shift its policy is disingenous at best.

[randome]

33. 'Give up'? I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, just pointing out facts.

Los Angeles alone decided to close more than 500 medical dispensaries because they became too numerous and 'out of control'.

From the Cole memo:

There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes.

You can rail against Obama all you want but the truth is far too many medical marijuana dispensaries had opened and were likely not in the business of serving seriously ill patients.

I know Los Angeles is a big city but do you really think they needed 675 dispensaries?

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. Who determines that there are "far too many" dispensaries?

You? The US Attorney? On what basis?

I don't know if LA "needs" several hundred dispensaries. I also don't know if it "needs" several hundred pharmacies or several thousand retail liquor outlets, but it has them. Maybe, this being America and all, we could let the market decide.

The LA city council indeed voted to close ALL dispensaries in the city--would that mean there would be "far too few"?--but its frustrated prohibitionist response to problems regulating them has been blocked by citizen action. This will go to a vote of the people, in May, I think.

A number of California cities and counties have moved to ban dispensaries entirely, which they can arguably do under still unsettled state law. A smaller number have moved to regulate them like other businesses.

That's different from the federal crackdown, which is indeed a policy shift by the Obama administration. You can argue that it is a necessary policy shift, but I will disagree with you.

[randome]

35. Medical marijuana is not part of a free market. That's the point.

Maybe the state initiatives this election will start to change that but I don't see that happening. Federal law will still trump state law.

I think we would be a lot closer to legalization if the push was for decriminalization first.

[Comrade Grumpy]

37. We had the push for decriminalization. After the Schafer Commission report. In 1972.

A few states decriminalized then, before we went into the darkness of the Reagan years. A few more have decriminalized in the past decade.

Yes, federal law trumps state law, but winning legalization initiatives will start to change that. If these initiatives win, it's not the end of pot prohibition, but it may be the beginning of the end.

The DEA has limited resources. Is it going to use them busting pot shops in states where it is legal or is going to use them to go after meth or heroin or bath salts?

[boppers]

49. Do you live in a state that regulates strip clubs?

Bars?

Tobacco sales?

Any county regulations?

City regulations?

[WilliamPitt]

30. Medical marijuana is on the ballot in MA.

Voting yes.

[Cobalt Violet]

73. maybe in 15 years we'll get recreational use on the ballot.

Hopefully someday.

[Uncle Joe]

36. Kicked and recommended for the great states of Washington, Oregon and Colorado

please do the right thing and legalize.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

[kashleen]

53. We did! Hopefully the state's voters will too!

count myself and my husband as two votes "for" 502 - here's hoping that it passes. We have some great commercials that make good sense!

[Uncle Joe]

59. Good.

Welcome to D.U. kashleen

Peace to you,
Uncle Joe

[wordpix]

40. finally! Now watch the repugs darling "states rights" argument be flipped on its head

They will be crying pot is a Schedule A drug according to the feds so should be banned in the states. Here we go

[Volaris]

44. "...would be interpreted by the Department of Justice as an act of defiance..."

Well, then that makes it an act of Civil Disobedience by the Sovereign State Bureaucracy (as opposed to an Uncivil one) that chooses NOT to enforce Federal Law.
If this passes, and I were the Gov. of Colorado, and the DOJ started to make threats of Enforcement, my response would be "It's an act of Civil Disobedience. Come the fuck up here and arrest me if you want (and we'll see how that works out for you, Mr. Holder.)"

I REALLY hope this passes.

[boppers]

51. Pushing the right-wing mantra of "state's rights" annoys me.

Then again, DOMA also annoys me.

[Volaris]

57. Oh, it annoys the hell out of me, too...

but, 2 things:

1) If they can rattle that sabre for their own ends, so can we...and NOTHING pisses them off more than getting cut with their own knives (they seem to have a real problem with Turnabout being Fair Play)

2) It DOES beg the question, "Can State Governments, as a Soverign Entity (or the legislators/Executive who act on The State's behalf) engage in acts of CIVIL Disobedience, as long as they are willing to pay the associated cost of being in violation of the Law?" I say the answer is YES, with the difference between Civil and UNCivil being in the first case, you are willing to get arrested for standing your ground, and in the second, you're NOT, so you fire on Ft. Sumpter in order to prevent said arrest, by any means necessary.

[boppers]

64. LOL, I just got a visual of pothead revolutionaries....

"Hey man, if you're arresting me, can I get a snack?"

It's a stereotype, of course.

[Volaris]

65. heehee, well, that's not EXACTLY the image I was trying to conjure,

but I gues if that's what I get, I'll take it

How do we NOT have a potleaf smilie, again?

[Eleanors38]

69. It's the lotto effect: States can't stand seeing tax revenues

and spending going over the border to a "legal" state. So, they'll want to get in on the act.

[rad51]

48. rec'd

[Mr.Bill]

50. Here's what you may be in for.

I live in a small northern county in California. My state legalized medicinal marijuana over a decade ago. State laws be damned, federal agents have been busting local growers who are abiding by our state laws since we made MM legal. We had a right wing Sheriff who cooperated fully with the feds because they shoveled funding to his department. So much money that the department became dependent on it.

Now we have a new Sheriff, and not much changed. Recently, two of our Sheriff's Deputies have been sworn in as Federal DEA agents. And they won't tell us which two. So now our Sheriff's department are de facto agents enforcing federal laws.

Enjoy your illusion of legal Marijuana. It will never happen on a federal level, sorry to say.

[Uncle Joe]

71. As more states and cities legalize or decriminalize cannabis, abusing local law

will become more difficult.

In time as those reformed state and city laws lead the way, gaining strength in numbers, acceptance and awareness, so does the probability of sane, logical and just cannabis reform on a national level.

This is not to say there won't be struggle but history is clearly on the side of the reformers.

[musiclawyer]

72. I live in CA too

I know the law and have seen Fed abuses unmitigated by POTUS. And ther Feds WILL stand down once more than one state re- legalizes. They might fight if ONLY one re- legalizes. But they will lose, and lose badly. The reformers have unimpeachable science and data on their side. The feds have nothing. Literally no evidence to support their musguided crusade. Federaal Court is where it ends.......... Once CO and/or WA show the way, CA will have no choice. The professional emerald triangle growers whose lack of support resulted in the defeat of prop 19, will be the first ones drafting the new measure. They cannot walk away from the marketplace. There is too much money to be made even after paying their fair share of taxes.

Denver /Seattle. Get ready for your departure on the good ship moneyball. You will have a lot of visitors dropping serious coin.

[redqueen]

55. $44 billion a year from taxpayers, plus all those seized assets...

Nice racket they have going.

[MuhkRahker]

58. Where can I find polls for these measures?

Thanks!

[bw3517]

60. Born in Eugene, OR, raised in Spokane, WA...

and I approve this message...even though I won't waste my money on smoking it.

[DeschutesRiver]

62. Native Oregonian here - voted in the right to make my own end of life issues, & hopefully this time

will finally pass this right to choose cannabis bill.

Oregonians have fought the feds before for personal freedoms, see Ashcroft's vow to end our euthanasia laws and his resulting defeat.

While I love this administration, I'd look forward to delivering a similar ass kicking should the DOJ come after us if we pass the cannabis bill.

[Franker65]

66. Not looking forward to this

We could experience a huge spike in accidents and medical issues if this goes through. People need to know how to handle if and it must be tightly regulated.

[sendero]

68. LOL..

... you can't be serious. If you are, please look in the mirror to see a totally misinformed person.

[randome]

74. Way to engage in a discussion.

First, this isn't going to change anything in federal law even if it passes.
Second, putting smoke in your lungs means there WILL be an uptick in respiratory diseases if legalization passes and is upheld by federal law enforcement, which it will not be.

About the accident rate, I think it, too, will increase but I don't have statistics to back that up. I think it's axiomatic that if there are more people on the road not paying attention, more accidents will occur.

[sendero]

77. I have a policy..

... of not engaging in discussions with folks who are so far off that there is no hope of corraling them into any sort of rational sphere.

And BTW, pretty much all of your assertions are bullshit as well, but I have no desire to discuss it.

[joshcryer]

67. It's polling ahead by 10 points in Colorado. It's going to pass in Colorado.

Guaranteed.

[Megahurtz]

75. Yes! Yes! Yes!

People do not need to be in prison for pot, it's fucking ridiculous.

[fascisthunter]

76. add Mass to the list

it shall happen