Go cannabis!
November 5, 2002 10:15 PM Subscribe
Go cannabis! As discussed in an earlier Mefi thread, there are a handful of medical marijuana referendums in various states. Possibly the most interesting is Nevada's constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana for medicinal use. It looks like this will become the law of the land (scroll all the way down). Arizona seems to have a few more NARCs (Proposition 203) than it does free-thinkers. In South Dakota, it looks like an industrial hemp initiative (bottom) has failed (Initiated Measure 1). How are the pot-legalization crusaders doing in your own home state?
Can I just say that any fool who though 3 ounces was a good amount to have be legal for legalization is totally daft? I mean, come on, you're talking about a serious amount of pot, street price-wise.
Maybe if it were one ounce, it would've stood a chance. Then again, it seems as though the elections are pointing to a country that thinks with its ass, and cries "traitor" to any that don't...
NYC used to be a truly laissez-faire city as far as pot smoking goes. You could walk by a cop smoking a joint and not really worry about it. Now the cops are offering you the pot, and if you are interested, they'll arrest you.
Thanks, Giuliani, you've really helped out the city.
posted by Busithoth at 10:21 PM on November 5, 2002
Maybe if it were one ounce, it would've stood a chance. Then again, it seems as though the elections are pointing to a country that thinks with its ass, and cries "traitor" to any that don't...
NYC used to be a truly laissez-faire city as far as pot smoking goes. You could walk by a cop smoking a joint and not really worry about it. Now the cops are offering you the pot, and if you are interested, they'll arrest you.
Thanks, Giuliani, you've really helped out the city.
posted by Busithoth at 10:21 PM on November 5, 2002
currently, the measure that requires the city and county of San Francisco to be the cultivator and provider of marijuana for those who require it, is winning by a slim margin.
I love this town.
posted by pejamo at 10:23 PM on November 5, 2002
I love this town.
posted by pejamo at 10:23 PM on November 5, 2002
i hate to say this, but it looks as though the result on the FPP about Nevada is incorrect. Yahoo!, CNN, and a nevada TV station all report the reverse numbers of this sheet for proposition 9. One such story is here.
posted by condour75 at 10:33 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by condour75 at 10:33 PM on November 5, 2002
Am I the only Republican that would like to see legalized Marijuana across the entire country?
I'd love to see illegal tobacco and legal weed.
posted by cinematique at 10:40 PM on November 5, 2002
I'd love to see illegal tobacco and legal weed.
posted by cinematique at 10:40 PM on November 5, 2002
If we go by Nevada's official numbers from their site, then it looks like it did pass. So who do we trust? Our numbers or some second-rate CBS affiliate in Las Vegas?
Anyway, I want to believe that it passed... so I'll do whatever I can to somehow make that a reality. Um. Little help, anyone?
For more information on the wording of Question 9, here is the official link.
posted by Hammerikaner at 10:41 PM on November 5, 2002
Anyway, I want to believe that it passed... so I'll do whatever I can to somehow make that a reality. Um. Little help, anyone?
For more information on the wording of Question 9, here is the official link.
posted by Hammerikaner at 10:41 PM on November 5, 2002
I hope you're right Hammer... I don't live there but i'd love to see it happen.
posted by condour75 at 10:43 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by condour75 at 10:43 PM on November 5, 2002
Just a thought, but perhaps the medical use of pot would have a better chance if endless WOOWOO jerks didn't keep celebrating it as a victory for every stoner on the planet.
posted by HTuttle at 10:49 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by HTuttle at 10:49 PM on November 5, 2002
oops, you're republican. I think if one is pro normal and all that, seems you're a democrat. doesn't it?
woowoo?
posted by folktrash at 10:52 PM on November 5, 2002
woowoo?
posted by folktrash at 10:52 PM on November 5, 2002
Oh my... it appears that the results page I linked to in the FPP is from... the 2000 election!
Color me embarassed! Shame on me for not checking the date of the page, sitting right below the results!
For the real results, go here.
posted by Hammerikaner at 10:52 PM on November 5, 2002
Color me embarassed! Shame on me for not checking the date of the page, sitting right below the results!
For the real results, go here.
posted by Hammerikaner at 10:52 PM on November 5, 2002
hammer: these are two different proposition 9s, the results page you linked to seems to be a results page for nov. 2000, for medical marijuana. The proposition 9 tonight was for legalization of a small amount for personal use.
posted by condour75 at 10:54 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by condour75 at 10:54 PM on November 5, 2002
Am I the only Republican that would like to see legalized Marijuana across the entire country?
No.
Hammerikaner, 'nother rip for ya? :-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:55 PM on November 5, 2002
No.
Hammerikaner, 'nother rip for ya? :-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:55 PM on November 5, 2002
I'm glad I beat you to disproving me.
posted by Hammerikaner at 10:55 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by Hammerikaner at 10:55 PM on November 5, 2002
Am I the only Republican that would like to see legalized Marijuana across the entire country?
Nope, I would too. Never touched the stuff myself, but definitely think it should be legal.
posted by nobody_knose at 11:01 PM on November 5, 2002 [1 favorite]
Nope, I would too. Never touched the stuff myself, but definitely think it should be legal.
posted by nobody_knose at 11:01 PM on November 5, 2002 [1 favorite]
two a.m. here eastern time - anyone up for a good late night pancake breakfast at one of the all night diners? All this pot talk has given me the munchies.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:03 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by madamjujujive at 11:03 PM on November 5, 2002
Why was a constitutional amendment needed to make alcohol illegal, plus to reverse it... but one isn't in place for marijuana or any other illegal substance?
I've never received a good answer for this.
posted by cinematique at 11:05 PM on November 5, 2002
I've never received a good answer for this.
posted by cinematique at 11:05 PM on November 5, 2002
What I can't understand is why the industrial hemp measure didn't pass in South Dakota. It would be an amazing crop for farmers to grow, since it is so versatile and hearty.
"It's the germplasm, stupid!"
posted by Hammerikaner at 11:26 PM on November 5, 2002
"It's the germplasm, stupid!"
posted by Hammerikaner at 11:26 PM on November 5, 2002
Hammerikaner --- because then the DEA and FBI would be even further outside their jurisdictional bounds when seizing an industrial hemp crop grown under Tribal authority on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. (Indian Law is always fun.)
posted by nathan_teske at 12:12 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by nathan_teske at 12:12 AM on November 6, 2002
I say legalise for all uses, recreative included. I am going to fight illegal drug traffic growing my own marihuana. Thanks god I don't live in a fundamentalist country.
posted by samelborp at 1:11 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by samelborp at 1:11 AM on November 6, 2002
I saw poll results for legalization of marijuana in the news yesterday (sorry, no link--it was on the LED screen in the elevator at work) that showed that about 84% of all Americans (not necessarily voters) favored legalization. I also favor legalization. The problem is, WHO VOTES?
When I went to early voting last week, I was among the only 15 % or so there at the polls who was under 50 years of age!
Those who vote in this country are by and large OLD.
These older people were fed the reefer madness progaganda when they were young, and by dog, like the bible says, if you tell what you them to know when they are young, then they will always live by those principles.
Marijuana will become legalized only those who were fed reefer madness propaganda are mostly DEAD. Or, until we pass mandatory voting laws.
We are far more machine, and less free willed, autonomous beings, then we think.
posted by bannedThrice at 3:21 AM on November 6, 2002
When I went to early voting last week, I was among the only 15 % or so there at the polls who was under 50 years of age!
Those who vote in this country are by and large OLD.
These older people were fed the reefer madness progaganda when they were young, and by dog, like the bible says, if you tell what you them to know when they are young, then they will always live by those principles.
Marijuana will become legalized only those who were fed reefer madness propaganda are mostly DEAD. Or, until we pass mandatory voting laws.
We are far more machine, and less free willed, autonomous beings, then we think.
posted by bannedThrice at 3:21 AM on November 6, 2002
I saw poll results for legalization of marijuana in the news yesterday (sorry, no link--it was on the LED screen in the elevator at work) that showed that about 84% of all Americans (not necessarily voters) favored legalization. I also favor legalization. The problem is, WHO VOTES?
When I went to early voting last week, I was among the only 15 % or so there at the polls who was under 50 years of age!
Those who vote in this country are by and large OLD.
These older people were fed the reefer madness progaganda when they were young, and by dog, like the bible says, if you tell what you them to know when they are young, then they will always live by those principles.
Marijuana will become legalized only those who were fed reefer madness propaganda are mostly DEAD. Or, until we pass mandatory voting laws.
We are far more machine, and less free willed, autonomous beings, than we think.
posted by bannedThrice at 3:21 AM on November 6, 2002
When I went to early voting last week, I was among the only 15 % or so there at the polls who was under 50 years of age!
Those who vote in this country are by and large OLD.
These older people were fed the reefer madness progaganda when they were young, and by dog, like the bible says, if you tell what you them to know when they are young, then they will always live by those principles.
Marijuana will become legalized only those who were fed reefer madness propaganda are mostly DEAD. Or, until we pass mandatory voting laws.
We are far more machine, and less free willed, autonomous beings, than we think.
posted by bannedThrice at 3:21 AM on November 6, 2002
Well, various Massachusetts counties voted YES on their various Marijuana decriminalization questions (and, almost as good, gave the current "Speaker for Life" in the State House the finger).
posted by bkdelong at 4:18 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by bkdelong at 4:18 AM on November 6, 2002
Looks like Nevada doesn't want their 3 ounces. Arizona doesn't want cops delivering their weed. Ohio doesn't even want treatment over criminalizing. I guess the billionaires three will just have to try again.
posted by Degaz at 4:26 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by Degaz at 4:26 AM on November 6, 2002
The "Medical Marijuana" proposition in Arizona was a joke. It required the DPS to hand out free marijuana to all comers, and legalized the possession of small quantities of controlled substances (not just marijuana). Yet it received 43% (last I looked) of the vote, because voters were convinced by the advertising to think of it as a genuine medical marijuana proposition. (If it were simply advertised as what it was, it never would have received so many votes, at least not in this state.)
Yeesh. Maybe the "we need better voters, not more voters" argument was right on...
posted by oissubke at 6:02 AM on November 6, 2002
Yeesh. Maybe the "we need better voters, not more voters" argument was right on...
posted by oissubke at 6:02 AM on November 6, 2002
because voters were convinced by the advertising to think of it as a genuine medical marijuana proposition.
all of that 43% were convinced of that?
marijuana shouldn't be legalized. I've seen the commercials that show what happens to pot smokers. they become rapists, or they accidently kill the guy with the bong.
posted by tolkhan at 7:38 AM on November 6, 2002
all of that 43% were convinced of that?
marijuana shouldn't be legalized. I've seen the commercials that show what happens to pot smokers. they become rapists, or they accidently kill the guy with the bong.
posted by tolkhan at 7:38 AM on November 6, 2002
My favorite anti-pot commercial is the one with the babysitter and her boyfriend who get high and then "forget" that they are supposed to be babysitting and leave the crying baby alone in the house.
Are these supposed to be making me laugh and want to get stoned?
There are far more insidious drugs than pot, yet pot is the only one getting all the TV and radio time. Perhaps because it's so close to becoming de-crimininalized?
posted by archimago at 8:30 AM on November 6, 2002
Are these supposed to be making me laugh and want to get stoned?
There are far more insidious drugs than pot, yet pot is the only one getting all the TV and radio time. Perhaps because it's so close to becoming de-crimininalized?
posted by archimago at 8:30 AM on November 6, 2002
all of that 43% were convinced of that?
No, certainly not all of them, but this state is conservative enough that if they had flat-out said "The purpose of this bill is to minimize the consequences of being caught with a controlled substance, regardless of whether you have a prescription, and as an extra bonus we're going to make the cops *hand us* marijuana", it would have been voted down 99% to 1%.
I think the best part was hearing a pot dealer call into the AM talk show and explain that he didn't care if it passed or not. If it passed, he'd be safe when caught, and if it didn't, the prices would stay nice and high and he'd continue making money.
posted by oissubke at 8:40 AM on November 6, 2002
No, certainly not all of them, but this state is conservative enough that if they had flat-out said "The purpose of this bill is to minimize the consequences of being caught with a controlled substance, regardless of whether you have a prescription, and as an extra bonus we're going to make the cops *hand us* marijuana", it would have been voted down 99% to 1%.
I think the best part was hearing a pot dealer call into the AM talk show and explain that he didn't care if it passed or not. If it passed, he'd be safe when caught, and if it didn't, the prices would stay nice and high and he'd continue making money.
posted by oissubke at 8:40 AM on November 6, 2002
yet pot is the only one getting all the TV and radio time
we get a lot of ecstasy commercials around here, though local law officials keep saying it's meth that's the problem.
actually, we don't get a lot of ecstasy commercials. we get one commercial played over and over and over. it's annoying, and it makes me want to drink myself blind.
I miss the old anti-pot commercial I saw all the time while in high school: The father with a handful of joints (and John Holmes-style hair and mustache) confronts his son, "Where did you get this? Who taught you to do this?" (or something like that) and the kid responds "I learned it by watching you!" You can get so much mileage out of that line.
all of that 43% were convinced of that?
No, … but … it would have been voted down 99% to 1%.
so, only 42% of Arizona voters are dupes then?
posted by tolkhan at 9:00 AM on November 6, 2002
we get a lot of ecstasy commercials around here, though local law officials keep saying it's meth that's the problem.
actually, we don't get a lot of ecstasy commercials. we get one commercial played over and over and over. it's annoying, and it makes me want to drink myself blind.
I miss the old anti-pot commercial I saw all the time while in high school: The father with a handful of joints (and John Holmes-style hair and mustache) confronts his son, "Where did you get this? Who taught you to do this?" (or something like that) and the kid responds "I learned it by watching you!" You can get so much mileage out of that line.
all of that 43% were convinced of that?
No, … but … it would have been voted down 99% to 1%.
so, only 42% of Arizona voters are dupes then?
posted by tolkhan at 9:00 AM on November 6, 2002
so, only 42% of Arizona voters are dupes then?
Yeah, just about.
posted by oissubke at 9:02 AM on November 6, 2002
Yeah, just about.
posted by oissubke at 9:02 AM on November 6, 2002
cinematique, I'll attempt a response at your question about the constitutional amendment:
A constitutional amendment was not necessary, strictly speaking, to outlaw alcohol - Congress could have passed a federal law criminalizing the use/sale/etc... of alcohol, but under the constitution, Congress could only regulate alcohol to the extent that it involved interstate commerce - thus, it still would have been possible for states to allow alcohol as long as the alcohol was produced, sold, consumed, etc... within the state's borders.
In order to completely outlaw alcohol everywhere in the country, all of the states would have had to impose their own bans on alcohol, and the prohibitionists wanted to be sure that no rogue states allowed booze to remain legal. An amendment to the federal constitution can't be overridden by state law, so a constitutional amendment was a way to ensure that alcohol wouldn't be legal anywhere in the country.
The only reason a constitutional amendment was later needed to legalize alcohol is because the constitution had already been amended to prohibit alcohol. Since no law can override the constitution, it was necessary to repeal the previous amendment.
Why hasn't this come up with marijuana?
Well, there are federal laws which regulate marijuana in interstate commerce, and presumably all states have their own laws making pot illegal even if it isn't used in interstate commerce (I haven't checked the laws of every state on this, but we'd all know about it if there was a state that didn't have laws prohibiting pot).
Because 1) it's extremely difficult to amend the constitution, 2) the nation isn't caught up in prohibition-era hysteria, and 3) marijuana is already illegal everywhere in the U.S., a constitutional amendment to ban pot seems unlikely.
And since there is no constitutional prohibition against marijuana, any state that wants to is free to legalize marijuana within its own borders.
Anyway, that analysis is a little over-simplified, but I think it's basically correct.
posted by singmesomething at 9:45 AM on November 6, 2002
A constitutional amendment was not necessary, strictly speaking, to outlaw alcohol - Congress could have passed a federal law criminalizing the use/sale/etc... of alcohol, but under the constitution, Congress could only regulate alcohol to the extent that it involved interstate commerce - thus, it still would have been possible for states to allow alcohol as long as the alcohol was produced, sold, consumed, etc... within the state's borders.
In order to completely outlaw alcohol everywhere in the country, all of the states would have had to impose their own bans on alcohol, and the prohibitionists wanted to be sure that no rogue states allowed booze to remain legal. An amendment to the federal constitution can't be overridden by state law, so a constitutional amendment was a way to ensure that alcohol wouldn't be legal anywhere in the country.
The only reason a constitutional amendment was later needed to legalize alcohol is because the constitution had already been amended to prohibit alcohol. Since no law can override the constitution, it was necessary to repeal the previous amendment.
Why hasn't this come up with marijuana?
Well, there are federal laws which regulate marijuana in interstate commerce, and presumably all states have their own laws making pot illegal even if it isn't used in interstate commerce (I haven't checked the laws of every state on this, but we'd all know about it if there was a state that didn't have laws prohibiting pot).
Because 1) it's extremely difficult to amend the constitution, 2) the nation isn't caught up in prohibition-era hysteria, and 3) marijuana is already illegal everywhere in the U.S., a constitutional amendment to ban pot seems unlikely.
And since there is no constitutional prohibition against marijuana, any state that wants to is free to legalize marijuana within its own borders.
Anyway, that analysis is a little over-simplified, but I think it's basically correct.
posted by singmesomething at 9:45 AM on November 6, 2002
So how about instead of making that Freedom Lovers' State (or whatever it's called) we get all the pot-smokers together and form Cannabis.
posted by callmejay at 10:09 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by callmejay at 10:09 AM on November 6, 2002
currently, the measure that requires the city and county of San Francisco to be the cultivator and provider of marijuana for those who require it, is winning by a slim margin.
The margin didn't end up being too slim in the end. But, it only allows the city to start looking into it, it definitely doesn't require anything of anyone. When a proposition to actually do this comes around, I think they'll still have a fight on their hands, despite it being SF.
posted by badstone at 10:25 AM on November 6, 2002
The margin didn't end up being too slim in the end. But, it only allows the city to start looking into it, it definitely doesn't require anything of anyone. When a proposition to actually do this comes around, I think they'll still have a fight on their hands, despite it being SF.
posted by badstone at 10:25 AM on November 6, 2002
bannedThrice: Mack Twain is over 50 and Mack Twain will smoke bannedThrice under the table. Mack Twain has a medical card from the State of Oregon which allows Mack Twain to grow and smoke marijuana, now known as "medicine". bannedThrice, move to Oregon, get your medical card and we will get well together while watching "Reefer Madness". I would like to say more but I'm falling out and
posted by Mack Twain at 10:37 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 10:37 AM on November 6, 2002
I would like to say more but I'm falling out and NO CARRIER
posted by oissubke at 10:57 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by oissubke at 10:57 AM on November 6, 2002
bannedThrice, i think that 84% percent number is for those who supported the legalization of medical marijuana.
the number of favor straight decriminalization is somewhere around 40%.
Busithoth, i definitely agree with you about the "new" NYC, but i disagree on the 3 ounces issue. it's a lot, to be sure, but i think it was important to truly distinguish the major dealers (which, by community standards, they feel obligated to prosecute) from the major smokers. 3 ounces is a ridiculously large amount for personal use, but i'd rather they erred on the high (heh heh) side of personal freedom.
if anybody changed his/her mind b/c it was 3 oz. and not just one, that's kinda silly (imnsho). you're probably right about its political unsavviness, but even it if passed this year, the forces of evil would have amassed their armies and taken it down next year.
the anti-DUI arguments against 9 are silly, too.
tolkhan, great psa reference. i can still remember the shocked look on the dad's face. take it easy, stoner dad!
posted by mrgrimm at 11:18 AM on November 6, 2002
the number of favor straight decriminalization is somewhere around 40%.
Busithoth, i definitely agree with you about the "new" NYC, but i disagree on the 3 ounces issue. it's a lot, to be sure, but i think it was important to truly distinguish the major dealers (which, by community standards, they feel obligated to prosecute) from the major smokers. 3 ounces is a ridiculously large amount for personal use, but i'd rather they erred on the high (heh heh) side of personal freedom.
if anybody changed his/her mind b/c it was 3 oz. and not just one, that's kinda silly (imnsho). you're probably right about its political unsavviness, but even it if passed this year, the forces of evil would have amassed their armies and taken it down next year.
the anti-DUI arguments against 9 are silly, too.
tolkhan, great psa reference. i can still remember the shocked look on the dad's face. take it easy, stoner dad!
posted by mrgrimm at 11:18 AM on November 6, 2002
So how about instead of making that Freedom Lovers' State (or whatever it's called) we get all the pot-smokers together and form Cannabis.
What, you mean establish a British Columbia? It's been done already...
posted by five fresh fish at 12:30 PM on November 6, 2002
What, you mean establish a British Columbia? It's been done already...
posted by five fresh fish at 12:30 PM on November 6, 2002
Can I just say that any fool who though 3 ounces was a good amount to have be legal for legalization is totally daft? I mean, come on, you're talking about a serious amount of pot, street price-wise.
Where do you live? Sounds like I need to come there and set up shop because three ounces of weed (regular) in Las Vegas has a street value of about $150.
posted by monique at 2:09 PM on November 6, 2002
Where do you live? Sounds like I need to come there and set up shop because three ounces of weed (regular) in Las Vegas has a street value of about $150.
posted by monique at 2:09 PM on November 6, 2002
« Older | Tired of the same old Acapella? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
*cries*
posted by madamjujujive at 10:20 PM on November 5, 2002