• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Looks like Washington State is going to legalize weed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
It failed the last time it came up for vote. Though it was fairly narrow, if brought up again in a year or two I would speculate it would pass narrowly.
Doubt it, all the grow ops, and people reaping the billions per year off it now don't want it to go 100% legal.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
I don't use anything except caffeine, but I do support the end of drug prohibition.

Legalize it, tax it and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol. Save billions on enforcement and incarceration, cut off the funding for the drug cartels.
Unfortunately you'd also be cutting off funding to domestic paramilitary law enforcement agencies, and the DEA.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
59
91
Pot is not legal in California and the last initiative put up lost at the ballot box. Furthermore the Feds have cracked down on medical pot clubs all across the state or have you not been paying attention to Obama's 'War on Pot" which has been on going in the state by the Feds?

"Obama's War on Pot" - From the oh so conservative Rolling Stones magazine.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

"Obama's War On Weed In California: Cannabis Crackdown Has Dire Economic Consequences" - Another strong conservative source the Huffington post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/obamas-war-on-weed-in-california_n_1835290.html

"Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down" - MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/calif-pot-dispensaries-told-feds-shut-down/#.UJgLxMXA9Gs
My point was that a state legalized it to some degree, and moved forward with it. California has had to fight against it, but they haven't just given up altogether just because it's illegal federally. If Washington legalizes it outright and pushes forward, there's no way in hell the DEA has the resources to stop it. It would be a losing battle for the DEA.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
350
126
This is either the USA backs down, or there is a real possibility of a secession on on our hands. I'm hoping it will be peaceful and the USA allows WA to go peacefully to its freedom, but I have a feeling a lot of lives will be lost.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
It's the states that have been hardest hit monetarily enforcing marijuana laws so it's natural for them to be out in front in legalizing it.

It's a big burden on everything from the police, the courts and the prisons.

As for Obama's enforcement of the Federal laws I think a lot of had to do with his youthful use of pot and the political necessity of looking tough on weed.
I think we might see a different approach in his second term. What is needed is a Federal law turning the prohibition on pot into a states rights issue.
clinton had two terms; he had used it and did nothing about it in either term.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
My point was that a state legalized it to some degree, and moved forward with it. California has had to fight against it, but they haven't just given up altogether just because it's illegal federally. If Washington legalizes it outright and pushes forward, there's no way in hell the DEA has the resources to stop it. It would be a losing battle for the DEA.
The Feds have more $$ than the state.
They just need to tie some funding into the enforcement.
Once every mole sticks their heads above ground; it becomes an easy whack the mole game for the Feds.

$50K bonfire every week will have an impact.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
This is either the USA backs down, or there is a real possibility of a secession on on our hands. I'm hoping it will be peaceful and the USA allows WA to go peacefully to its freedom, but I have a feeling a lot of lives will be lost.
Doper lives when they try to go up against the DEA and rest of the 3 letter Federal agencies
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
I think the "War on Drugs" has been a huge failure and has caused more harm than good. People are still using drugs no matter how many laws we pass. We are creating more criminals than we are saving from drug abuse.

We'd still have illegal drug trade though but it wouldn't be so large if there were legal drugs available.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
I don't use anything except caffeine, but I do support the end of drug prohibition.

Legalize it, tax it and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol. Save billions on enforcement and incarceration, cut off the funding for the drug cartels.
Dave do you relieze how many jobs would be lost if they made it legal. Laws for the sake of Jobs is the whole thing behind demon thought process. What would the poor sell for extra income . Crime would be cut in half we can't have that , Think of the jobs man . Screw everthing else think of the jobs . What losers we turned out to be.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Until the feds legalize it, it's not going to matter as anyone that either works for the government, supplies the government, CDL holder/job controlled by the DOT, or refinery/chemical/power plant will not be able to use MJ including MMJ.
FFS we agree on something.

Now how about the actual substance. Do you agree that it should be legalized, regulated, and taxed?
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Dave do you relieze how many government jobs would be lost if they made it legal. Laws for the sake of Government Jobs is the whole thing behind demon thought process. What would the poor sell for extra income . Crime would be cut in half we can't have that , Think of the jobs man . Screw everthing else think of the Government jobs . What losers we turned out to be.
Fixed that for you because anyone who believes that government jobs are a net positive to the economy should have to swallow their own shit when it comes to this issue.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Its 15 years later and now it looks like a state will legalize it. Different circumstances.
Obama will not be able to push anything through even if he tried.

Look at what was done with the Defense of Marriage Act.
He sat on the sidelines all the way.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
350
126
Fixed that for you because anyone who believes that government jobs are a net positive to the economy should have to swallow their own shit when it comes to this issue.
It's a non issue. Many government positions will need to be added in order to accommodate a new good coming to the market, government jobs will just shift from police and prisons to scientists, inspectors, accountants, etc.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
FFS we agree on something.

Now how about the actual substance. Do you agree that it should be legalized, regulated, and taxed?
I know you asked Londo but here is my view.

Pot should be legalized, not heavily regulated and not taxed.

- Taxation is regressive. The effect of taxes on goods and services is an attempt to diminish and/or restrict the use by consumers of those goods and services being taxed, e.g. alcohol, cigarette taxes, and the pot tax which was the catalyst for pot being made illegal, etc.

In addition a pot on tax will not solve the long term budget crisis that states of the federal government faces due to overspending. Our nations/states budgetary problems are not a revenue issue but a issue with politicians spending like drunken sailors or bored, shopaholic housewives.

- Heavy regulations on pot would reduce the number players who could participate in market for growing, selling and distributing pot on the retail market and in effect heavy regulations act similar to taxes in that they increase the cost of goods and services and thus help to restrict potential base of consumers and producers in the market who could afford to buy or sell pot.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
It's a non issue. Many government positions will need to be added in order to accommodate a new good coming to the market, government jobs will just shift from police and prisons to scientists, inspectors, accountants, etc.
That is a completely simplistic view and does not take into account the savings in not requiring to have all those government workers draining away at tax dollar resources. Which means that government will not just simply shift those jobs over to scientist, inspectors or accountants when there is no real need for them to do so at the expense of taxpayers. It is also one of the reasons why public service unions for law enforcement are one of the biggest supporters of anti-pot laws at the Federal and also in many cases at the state level and it all comes at the expense of the rights of the individual/taxpayer. This isn't even taking into account the relationship between politicians and these aforementioned public law enforcement and prison unions.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,351
4,314
136
Voted yes on 502.

Funny thing I don't participate, but most of the hard core smokers I know are dead against it.

They don't like the limits set for driving, and they don't want the government involved. I guess they think they'll never get popped.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
My point was that a state legalized it to some degree, and moved forward with it. California has had to fight against it, but they haven't just given up altogether just because it's illegal federally. If Washington legalizes it outright and pushes forward, there's no way in hell the DEA has the resources to stop it. It would be a losing battle for the DEA.
They don't have to have a lot of resources to win, All they will need to do is to just lobby government to pull away its own federal resources from the state if the state does not bend to the will of Big Brother who is continually growing larger and larger and more powerful as statist push for the big central government policy to trump all.
 

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,928
1,606
126
Road accidents would increase. Being super stoned and driving is dangerous only because you aren't paying attention as much. Think of the innocent lives on the road. Watch "red asphalt".
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
Road accidents would increase. Being super stoned and driving is dangerous only because you aren't paying attention as much. Think of the innocent lives on the road. Watch "red asphalt".
If we're really concerned about traffic safety, we'd ban alcohol as well. And cell phones. And we wouldn't allow teenagers or old people or men to drive. Because, you know, safety is more important than freedom, equality or common sense.
 

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,928
1,606
126
If we're really concerned about traffic safety, we'd ban alcohol as well. And cell phones. And we wouldn't allow teenagers or old people or men to drive. Because, you know, safety is more important than freedom, equality or common sense.
People who drink or use pot and drive don't have common sense. Making a law that enables them to go to their local bar and have a few joints with their beer doesn't make much more sense either and woulnd't be helping anyone.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
People who drink or use pot and drive don't have common sense. Making a law that enables them to go to their local bar and have a few joints with their beer doesn't make much more sense either and woulnd't be helping anyone.
People who drink or use pot and drive do so in spite of it being illegal. Why will the legality of pot affect that? They're willing to break one law, but not another?

Wait, you were that clever fellow who called Sandy a "non-event..." Clearly whatever you're in favor of is retarded, so I'm thinking legalization of pot is a good policy to pursue.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,764
516
126
I thought that there were some rather serious ramifications for legalizing marijuana in regard to defense contracting? If I remember correctly, isn't it the case that if a business is unable to decree that it can keep a drug-free workplace, it is unable to submit a bid for a federal contract? I believe this came up during the marijuana legalization hooplah in California, which has a rather large amount of defense contractors. Washington may not be as major as California, but Boeing has rather serious roots in Seattle, which would make this rather hairy if that's the case.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,351
4,314
136
I thought that there were some rather serious ramifications for legalizing marijuana in regard to defense contracting? If I remember correctly, isn't it the case that if a business is unable to decree that it can keep a drug-free workplace, it is unable to submit a bid for a federal contract? I believe this came up during the marijuana legalization hooplah in California, which has a rather large amount of defense contractors. Washington may not be as major as California, but Boeing has rather serious roots in Seattle, which would make this rather hairy if that's the case.
Obviously, until the Fed laws change, it will still be considered using illegal drugs which is strictly forbidden if one is to obtain a clearance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY