OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You're confusing. I'm pretty sure you were suggesting for most of the thread that regulations were a good thing.
Marijuana Legalization : Day One
- Thread starter mora
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
of course i do.
small scale, organic growers of the highest quality buds will have their niches as well.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Actually you are confused
I advocate only one regulation
Weed is illegal to sell, legal to possess and grow
bedspirit
Active Member
This is a recent article from the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018898246_marijaunaofm11m.html
It points out that when prop 19 was on the ballot in California, Eric Holder had vowed to enforce federal law:
The position of making marijuana legal to grow and own but illegal to sell is an interesting one. The growers who oppose legalization, like this guy: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Pot-grower-sues-to-stop-legalization-measure-163137636.html seem to want to protect their livelihood, which is completely understandable. If some agro giants got in the game, the price would plummet. Some growers are optimistic that they could continue their small operations and it would be like micro brews. I agree that there is a ton of room and potential for premium small batch marijuana but I can't imagine the prices remaining what they are today. Making marijuana illegal to sell would definitely keep big business out of the game.
It points out that when prop 19 was on the ballot in California, Eric Holder had vowed to enforce federal law:
I haven't seen any signals from the DOJ that their position has changed. The campaign manager for I-502 made a similar claim that ChesusRice made:
It still makes no sense to me that it would be the federal gov't that would take it upon themselves to enforce state law, while the state does nothing. I think it's more likely that they had other reasons. I have no idea what that reason is, it would only be speculation.
The position of making marijuana legal to grow and own but illegal to sell is an interesting one. The growers who oppose legalization, like this guy: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Pot-grower-sues-to-stop-legalization-measure-163137636.html seem to want to protect their livelihood, which is completely understandable. If some agro giants got in the game, the price would plummet. Some growers are optimistic that they could continue their small operations and it would be like micro brews. I agree that there is a ton of room and potential for premium small batch marijuana but I can't imagine the prices remaining what they are today. Making marijuana illegal to sell would definitely keep big business out of the game.
bedspirit
Active Member
As much as I love conspiracy theories, there may be another reason why the federal government is dragging it's feet on this. The Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs of 1961 is an international treaty that bans marijuana. The U.S. is the one responsible for placing cannabis with the more dangerous and strictly regulated drugs. Over the years there have challenges to that part of the treaty so I don't know exactly what the current status is, but I think if the federal government were to legalize marijuana, we would be in violation of that treaty.
Of course, that doesn't disprove any conspiracy theories, but it does show that the issue of legalization is extremely complicated and has international consequences.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I can almost gaurantee you
In a lot of the raids
It was the local authoritys that got the feds involved
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The USA respects international treaties only when they coincide with its interests. I don't expect the Single Convention to be a credible obstacle to USA legalizing weed, but I would count on it being used very vocally as an excuse. cn
bedspirit
Active Member
This is a post on the weed blog about how to save Harborside Healthcare. The article says the Obama administration has shut down over 400 dispensaries this year alone: http://www.theweedblog.com/harborside-health-center-vs-obama-and-the-fed/
There is a book coming out tomorrow called ‘Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational, and Scientific‘ by Martin A. Lee. He claims that in October of 2011, calls for Holder to resign over Fast and Furious had reached a fever pitch. Lee claims that by cracking down on dispensaries, Holder thought it would appease congress enough to allow him to keep his job. I don't know if that's true, and I obviously haven't read the book, but the SF Weekly pointed out that the claim didn't have a source, so Lee may have pulled it out of his ass.
There is a book coming out tomorrow called ‘Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational, and Scientific‘ by Martin A. Lee. He claims that in October of 2011, calls for Holder to resign over Fast and Furious had reached a fever pitch. Lee claims that by cracking down on dispensaries, Holder thought it would appease congress enough to allow him to keep his job. I don't know if that's true, and I obviously haven't read the book, but the SF Weekly pointed out that the claim didn't have a source, so Lee may have pulled it out of his ass.
bedspirit
Active Member
Absolutely no chance Obama will move toward legalization in his second term. This a High Times story that's very well sourced that explains what his revamping of the Drug War will look like: http://hightimes.com/legal/jgettman/7841?utm_source=rss_home
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Written by someone who would suffer from full legalization of weed
A medical cannabis advocate
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
That argument doesn't fly. The United States has shown no compunction about violating treaties it has signed, especially ones it basically wrote (such as the above)>
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
This argument does fly.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i can totally guarantee you, the humboldt county farm that was licensed by the county,, and each of their plants wore dog tags, were regularly inspected by the sheriffs department. and yet the dea busted them over the sheriff and the county board's objections. the dea and doj also threatened to arrest and charge the county board of supervisors, the county clerk and the sheriff for "aiding and abetting"
in sacramento county, the sheriff's office busted a couple dirty clinics,, the dea sent letters to the landlords of the other clinics threatening to sieze their properties as "drug profits" if they didnt evict the clinics the sheriff decided were in compliance with state law.
your dogged insistence that every clinic that gets busted "must have been doing something wrong" is as weak as ever. in any clinic no matter how careful, darws the attention of federal prosecutors they WILL get busted even if the dea has to threaten the sheriff with prosecution as an accomplice to get it done.
budlover13
King Tut
i must concede that this was the case in Fresno County and that fucking bitch Margaret Mims.
Too bad the cancer lost.
bedspirit
Active Member
Sure, he may have a horse in the race but this article does a very good job of showing how many Obama advisers and appointees are opposed to legalization. If it were just Obama running everything by himself, I might share your optimism. I can imagine a dude like Obama, having smoked his share of pot, signing a bill that legalizes marijuana. But with a dude like Holder running the DOJ, and a DEA that thus far has been as rigid as they were in the Nixon days, there is no hope he'll legalize it. The [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]White House drug control policy chief seems especially opposed to it and I didn't even know we had a WH drug control policy cheif! [/FONT]
bedspirit
Active Member
What's the dif? I'm not real familiar with the treaties we've broken. Off the top of my head, I assume we probably broke something when we waterboarded POW's. But there is a big difference. We didn't think we were going to get caught. Legalizing weed, is a little more difficult to hide.
I'll grant you that we'll never know if we really give a shit about that treaty or if we're going to use it as an excuse, but either way, look for that to be the reason why we just can't allow the voters of Washington, Colorado, and Oregon have their way.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
niether iraq nor afghanistan were signatories to the geneva convention,, and the geneva conventio n makes no provisions for the mollycoddling of mercenaries or international criminals. the DOJ was well within legal boundaries to waterboard the fuck out of any un-uniformed insurgent they wished to. they also could quite legally have simply shot them like dogs as spies or saboteurs as they were not in uniform, nor were they part of any recognized military. very much like the french,, polish,, czech and italian partisans in ww2.
as to treaty violations, the US does not violate treaties. (with the exceptions of the treaties with the various native tribes of the US, which were broken before the ink was dry) we only violate agreements with indigenous populations, not internationally recognized foreign governments, that would just be rude.
bedspirit
Active Member
I suspected that was the case. This treaty has been used as an excuse for not rescheduling marijuana and for not decriminalizing marijuana. I can't imagine it not being used again.