Californian's are on the cusp of legalizing marijuana in their state. While the polls are within the margin of error, if they do vote to legalize it next week it raises a lot of interesting issues. I think it could make for a good debate here.

 

First, those who most often promote states' rights are those who are most opposed to legalizing marijuana, among other things. Conversely, those who often find federal power most useful and necessary are those most likely to favor legalizing marijuana. How is this tension resolved? (Sorry libertarians, I left you out of my little riddle since you're more consistent, but I hope to hear your insights as well.)

 

Second, how is this going to play out in practice? Eric Holder has already said federal drug laws will be vigorously enforced, despite the Obama administration's rather lackadaisical position on enforcing marijuana laws up to this point. Several sheriffs in California have said they will still treat marijuana as a criminal issue even if it is legalized. What's going to happen? Could we see a big Supreme Court case over this, or is this already settled? If this passes, will it be like the first domino tripping the rest as other states subsequently opt for legalization or decriminalization?

Fascinating story. How can a state officer not abide by the state law? I'll be curious to learn more about the Fed's argument. I do not believe that states have the right to do whatever they want but I also think there has to be latitude given.

 

For the record, I'm for the legalization of marijuana even though I would never have the slightest interest in partaking.

Who would be the better driver, someone high on marijuana or someone that is drunk on alcohol?

Who would be the better driver, someone high on marijuana or someone that is drunk on alcohol?

 

Neither should be driving under the influence but I'm all for legalization.

How's the weather in San Diego, anyway?

How's the weather in San Diego, anyway?

 

Not sure, In LA though, its about 78 degrees with the sun out!! Feels great.

Legalize it . Treat it like Alcohol .

Legalize it, tax the heck out of it, and watch the deficit shrink. Treat it much like alcohol with respect to driving under the influence, use of firearms while under the influence, etc.

The problem with "treating it like alcohol" is that you can't test for marijuana nearly as effectively. If you smoke a joint tonight, and get in an accident in two weeks, you'll likely test positive for marijuana. The report will indicate that you had a positive drug screen, although the marijuana did not impact your decision making or ability to operate a vehicle at all.

Fascinating story. How can a state officer not abide by the state law? I'll be curious to learn more about the Fed's argument. I do not believe that states have the right to do whatever they want but I also think there has to be latitude given.

 

For the record, I'm for the legalization of marijuana even though I would never have the slightest interest in partaking.

 

Excellent questions that you won't find an answer to. Even the Constitutional scholars & Supreme Court won't give you a satisfactory opinion.

The problem with "treating it like alcohol" is that you can't test for marijuana nearly as effectively. If you smoke a joint tonight, and get in an accident in two weeks, you'll likely test positive for marijuana. The report will indicate that you had a positive drug screen, although the marijuana did not impact your decision making or ability to operate a vehicle at all.

( Risk , Reward ) , (Reward ,Risk )

I would appreciate some help from those in the legal field on this question. Suppose it is legalized by the state. Federal law (under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970) still has it classified as a Schedule I, the only exception allowed being Marinol. Could you still be charged under federal law in a federal court?

 

I must admit,I had to become pretty familiar with this law in Pharmacy School and until re-reading it tonight,I was not aware that the states could re-classify anything more leniant than the Federal Law.

Not necessarily opposed to legalizing pot but I do have a question.

 

If the Obama Justice Department found the need to file suit to have the Arizona Immigration Law deemed unconstitutional will (or should) they file suit to have this law invalidated since it is direct opposition to Federal Law? Many of Obama's biggest supporters (Soros) support this initiative while the biggest support for the Arizona Law comes from people who generally oppose Obama and his agenda. In the name of consistency and equal enforcement shouldn't the Obama Justice Department go after this law if it passes? I won't hold my breath (pun intended).

I have always felt that the inability to have an imediate test for "under the influence", like alcohol, is one of the biggest factors in not legalizing pot.

 

I personally feel this falls under states rights.

 

I also believe this is a loaded question. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

I see no difference between this and abortion, immigration, concealed carry, etc. They are all states rights. Our constitution was set up to allow for differences in the population and allow us to move freely about the country to an area that most represents our beliefs, so long as the states don't infringe upon the rights defined in the constitution.

I have always felt that the inability to have an imediate test for "under the influence", like alcohol, is one of the biggest factors in not legalizing pot.

 

I personally feel this falls under states rights.

 

I also believe this is a loaded question. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I see no difference between this and abortion, immigration, concealed carry, etc. They are all states rights. Our constitution was set up to allow for differences in the population and allow us to move freely about the country to an area that most represents our beliefs, so long as the states don't infringe upon the rights defined in the constitution.

 

 

But if you're stoned you sure want to. :banana: