Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Does legalization of Marijuana...

�create more or fewer regulations?

I am reminded, when I listen to the law enforcement and justice system proponents in Alaska, (they suggest legalization will lift the need for enforcement related to marijuana) that perhaps more laws and regulations will replace the more basic, straightforward prohibitions currently in place. Alcohol enforcement certainly seems to be an issue. I just don't see the logic in the arguments that some of the proponents put forward. What am I missing?

(BTW, I suppose it's no surprise that many teenagers seem to be very supportive of legalization. I would think that they might find themselves disappointed by the fact that it probably won't change much as far as they are concerned, if it passes.)

more problems...just at look Colorado

Anytime you give government more money, they will create more regulations, and more jobs to enforce them.

Big marijuana, big taxes, bigger government.

I don't like any of those three, and certainly not all three of them together.

Is there a Legal definition of "Under the Influence" of THC as there is with Alcohol?

Is there an accurate Road-Side test to indicate that Legal threshold of THC intoxication? Beside odor and several empty bags of Cheetos?

If Marijuana is decriminalized on the State level, are local LEO still required to arrest marijuana users under the Federal Firearms laws that make any and all users of marijuana "prohibited person"?

Can a user of marijuana purchase a Hunting license as they are NOT allowed under federal law to possess a firearm?

it moves money and power away from the cops, the DA's and the prison system, and moves it to a new group of bureaucrats to create a new fiefdom.

More regulations, more problems of all kinds.

Personally I've found benefits from the product in question....I find the larger question is: why does legalization require regulation?

Just a thunk

Charlie

If government just completely ignores it and acts like it doesn't exist (which I support) then it'll be less government regulations.

But doing like Colorado did and trying to semi-legalize it and tax it is stupid. All they're doing is creating more government employees and more government regulations and more marijuana laws than they had before. And it's not even actually benefitting the citizens. The money is going to be poured into enforcement and regulating and rehabilitation and advertising.

Ask our Colorado residents about the refund they got on their state income tax this year because of all that new tax money coming in......

Marijuana really hasn't been legalized in the U.S. - rather, certain people are being permitted to violate federal law. Follow the money.

Thanks that clears things up

Charlie

I wonder how long it will take the fed govt to connect firearm ownership to alcohol, like they do with pot and firearms. I have to think govt will always attempt to limit/eliminate gun ownership.

Complete decimalization, taxed like cigarettes.

Remove the money incentive, remove most of the problems.

Do licensed drivers require regulation? (Why not just drive like they do in Tibet or Uzbekistan or someplace like that�driver beware, and at your own risk -soley- and all that?)

You get's it

Charlie

Respectfully, I didn't take a test to drink and get licensed to drink...did you? Crazy place you live in...

Charlie

Never. According to the federal Government and the Gun Control Act of 1968 Alcohol is NOT considered a controlled substance. It would take Congress to change that.

Oh wait, I should change that "never" to pretty soon, cuz when you guys that vote Democrat funded Libertarian and you Stay-at-Home in protest Republicans get through handing these election to the Democrats on a Silver Platter, all bets are off.

Didn't take a test or get licensed to procreate, nonetheless I became a unlicensed dad, 7 years ago I beame an unlicensed "Papa Charlie".

Hope this finds all well

I don't know about "you guys that vote Democrat funded Libertarian and you Stay-at-Home in protest Republicans get through handing these election to the Democrats", but I can say for certain that I will vote my conscious and not a McCain or Romney (two of my favorite democrats) again; the party better run a true conservative if they want my vote in the future.

I rest my case!

Legal dope=EBT card that my taxers pay for....WTF

I'm for legalization but that doesn't mean I'm against regulation.

I'll be voting no here in a week or so.

I don't mind the dopers doping it up at home. My little corner of the world sure has it's share of idiots, and them staying home is fine with me. Legalized.. now I'm actually going to have to see them.

you don't have a case. the republican party needs to represent the values of a conservative and not hand us watered down socialists.

May as well hand the keys to Hilary yourself. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Correct.

quoted spelling!

Mathman?

Your case is exactly on point. Vote your "conscious" and you are voting for the next Hussien. Maybe worse.

If marijauana is legalized in Oregon I will grow it and probably make more than I'll ever make growing grapes.

We have all the permits from the feds, the state, and county to make, sell, import, and export; beer, wine and cider on premises and off. Shouldn't be too difficult to get the permits to do same with dope.

I voted for it.

You guys don't get it.
The republican party asked the citizens if they wanted their socialism with or without a phone. Romney? The only guy who couldn't challenge Obama on socialized healthcare?
We had one candidate that said downsize govt, reduce spending, return to the Constitution. The republicans crapped on him. I'm voting for a Conservative, period. If repubs don't want to run one, then they lose my vote. Running a Romney or McCain is handing the reins to the dems.

OP
The obvious answer is more regulation before there was law making it illegal tying up law enforcement enforcing pot laws, jails, courts, etc. Like prohibition. Now it regulated and taxed like alcohol. No big deal. What are some suggesting open the door to moonshining and have at atmosphere for pot and booze? Drinking wood alcolhol smoking rat laced pot? Hey that's the free market! Gov butt out! We don't need any stinkin state regulation. Viva Libertarianism!

I'm not aware of any major problems locally. There is an issue of driving impaired, unlike alcohol it is harder to nail down. But my guess about the same number are driving stone as before. I've heard 0 stories locally other than the DUI standard, sorting out employee use and shortages at stores. It's new and will take some time to sort the details. In short for the most part "pot problems in Colorado" are a none issue. Yawn.......

Good luck with that Federal permit.

I just find it rather interesting that the pro-dopers have enlisted various law entities to suggest that LEO and courts will, by legalizing it, be able to use their resources for more important things (like catching a few more red light runners would be a good start here.) I'm thinking legalization will increase the number and detail of the laws and regulations however, so that argument is empty. They also have one former officer who says he doesn't remember having to deal with violent behaviors related to dope- unlike alcohol. I guess he must have been privileged in his career; there have certainly been plenty of incidents that I am aware of that make the Snickers Diva ads seem very, very tame. Lots of women (the ones with the income) have been beaten for refusing to front the money for some righteous toking.

This. We cannot let them give us a freedom back, on one hand, and enslave us on the other. Taxing it is BS. Either we are free, especially of .gov, or we aren't.

The last thing we want is bigger government.

You guys have no clue how dangerous legalization is. Its not the smoked pot - it's the edibles made from refined MJ oils. They are making candy, cookies, chocolates, brownies, drinks - you name it. Largely unregulated. The rates of cannabis psychosis are skyrocketing.

My cousin that I went hunting with last weekend is a psychiatrist in Denver and he's buried two patients from it in the last year and he has put many young people in long-term institutional care because the edibles cause a lifetime of psychosis because it rewires the brain if first time or casual smokers take a huge dose of edibles. Before moving to Colorado, he'd never seen a single case a cannabis psychosis but deals with it regularly now that it's been legalized.

My wife's uncle missed our wedding because a local doper went off on our wedding day�.and her uncle had waited long for the day (which she promised would likely never happen). Her uncle was a cop and had to be the escort to get looney-Harry away from the scene to Nome. My soon-to-be wife was scared out of her wits that day because this dude was looking for her with news that the horses had gotten out of our house and were running loose. (We don't keep horses in our house nor have there been horses anywhere around for many decades.) I'm no fan of that crap.

yep,instead of Iran-Contra its Colorado- __________

the medical use issue is on the ballot here in Florida this year. It is a proposed Constitutional Amendment. Right now, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not it passes.
Medical use is like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. It's not long before the entire beast has taken over.

Just so you are aware, you will have to make a choice between your Pot Crop and your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Marijuana is still a Schedule I Controlled Substance and it's use or possession makes one a "Prohibited Person".

There are dozens of cases where Legal pot growers have been arrested by the Feds for Drug Trafficking with firearms involved. So, if you wish to grow Legal pot you cannot own or possess any Firearms.

You must be so happy with Obama as president, because you helped get him elected, whether or not you admit it. Nice job.........

Well Said!

a, to me, funny byproduct of the legalization of pot in arizona for medicinial purposes.
As told me by several FFL class 3 dealers.
People wanting to buy a firearms and filling out the 4473 then producing I.D. such as the medicinal Pot I.D. card.
They can't understand why they get rejected.

Rejected is one thing, lying on form 4473 line 11(e) is a Felony. These people are lucky he did not turn them in to the Feds.

If they were to be successful in purchasing a firearm they Now have two Felonies to deal with, Lying on form 4473 and Possession of a Firearm by a "Prohibited Person".

Has anyone ever been convicted of a felony for lying on the 4473???


I know its supposed to be a felony, but its in place as a feel good law...not a law thats enforced.

Yes, one just recently, went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Abramski.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abramski-v-united-states/


It happens,

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1097390.html

Rector was placed under state arrest for receiving stolen property (the Colt .357) in violation of Indiana law.   He was not placed under federal arrest at that time.   Rector subsequently pleaded guilty to the state charge.   A federal grand jury eventually indicted him on August 20, 1992, charging him with five counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. �� 922(g)(1) and 924, and two counts of making false statements on a federal firearms transaction form in violation of 18 U.S.C. �� 922(a)(6) and 924. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1097390.html#sthash.J1kwe5Py.dpuf

Good! Actually Im pleased that you were able to prove me wrong! We wouldn't have near the problems we have if they would enforce the existing laws....

Meanwhile...to the OPs question of regulations and legal marijuana...I started to write up the ways it would affect and change the regulations for just the things I know, which is Police K9...and frankly I don't have enough time, and you guys wouldn't want to read a post that long. Legalization changes a LOT....

Steve: thanks again for looking up that case law! Good to know for sure.


Back when I was working for the LGS Clinton passed a law that it was a felony to steal a gun from a licensed dealer. Excellent. Something we can work with!
Guy comes in and steals a Win 94 off the rack. We got it on video, and we caught the dude. Turned it all over to the ATF to prosecute and they refused because the rifle didn't have any " PR appeal...like an AK-47..."


Phouc............

Doesn't seem to be any problem in CO. and WA.

Then just vote for the Democrat nominee. The result is exactly the same.
People like you who stayed home in a snit gave us Hussein. Thanks a lot.

It grows wild all over the place around here, it is leftover from the days when it was grown as an agricultural crop for non drug uses, primarily making rope and "canvas". Rumor has it that it is more likely to give you a headache then get you high. I do know that large patches of it make great dove hunting spots.

Might want to do a little research on that one.

Here is the first thing that popped up when doing the Google.

A Westword staffer just got off the phone with the owner of Swiss Medical, and what he had to say sheds interesting light on the ongoing DEA raids of marijuana operations. According to the owner, the raid was prompted by one person among multiple tenants using its space -- but the plants belong to everyone were seized.

cherry.top.farms.2011.jpg
A Cherry Top Farms image from 2011.
The reason is undoubtedly the same as the rationale for taking all the plants from Cherry Top Farms back in 2011 -- an event noted above. As U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Jeff Dorschner told us at the time, agents actually followed suspects to Cherry Top Farms, which was in compliance with state rules. But because marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, federal law enforcers are required to seize weed whenever and wherever they encounter it.



http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/11/marijuana_raids_colorado_dea_irs_denver_police.php


I could post this [bleep] all day, but you get the point, I hope.

I'm thinking, just like gay marriage, pot will soon be legalized at the Fed level.

I doubt it.

The Republicans will not go for it.

The Democrats will Never go for it.

The Democrat's agenda includes Disarming America any way they can. With Pot being Legal on the State Level, but Illegal on the Federal level they can without a single bit of Federal legislation disarmed thousands if not Millions of Americans.

They will never vote to give up this Free Offer to disarm America.

Governments ... all Governments ... whether local, state or federal have one fundamental thing in common: They all lust for money! The Feds already tax such "sinful" and "destructive" products like tobacco and alcohol ... it's just a matter of time.

You're the one who doesn't get it.

I can recall an elderly farmer 20-30 years ago who ran a patch of that stuff through his baler and was going to ship a bale of 'hay' off to a source in Cali for use to stretch the 'good stuff'. It wasn't 'false representation' he got busted for.

All this with an active smoker in the WH.

Ridiculous. You guys have been watching too much Reefer Madness.

They will tax it in the State Level. The Feds do not need to tax pot, all they have to do is borrow more Money from China or Print it, states do not have that ability.

Actually I am very leary of edibles and feel they should be limited to medical use only. In general the more refined and concentrated a natural drug is, the more dangerous and addictive it becomes. Examples:

Opium, heroin, morphine
Coca leaves, cocaine, crack cocaine
Marijuana, hashish, edible oils

I don't know how many regulations were in place when alcohol was made illegal vs. how many were in place prior to and after it's prohibition, same as for tobacco.

But I look at it the same way - would we be better or worse off if possession and use of alcohol or tobacco in any form came with severe criminal penalties? If we would be worse off then why are we not worse off with the criminal penalties attached to marijuana?

And please don't finagle me about how "small amounts" of marijuana are already ignored or decriminalized in some states. Technically it is illegal at the state or federal level in all 50 states. Assume marijuana held the exact same legal status across the nation as alcohol or tobacco. Obviously some individuals would ruin their lives with it, same as some already ruin their lives (and the lives of their families) with alcohol or gambling or cheating on a spouse. My question is would the nation as a whole be better or worse off if marijuana had the same legal status as alcohol and tobacco?

And if the answer is that we would be much worse off, why then would we not be much better off to attach severe criminal penalties to the use and possession of a known highly addictive carcinogen and an intoxicant whose use has been responsible for more broken families, mayhem and violent behavior to even begin to list?

And once again, let me be clear about my position. I am NOT in favor of marijuana, it is an intoxicant with known or unknown possible long term deleterious effects to health.

But a known dangerous carcinogen and an extremely intoxicating substance are perfectly legal to "adults" and somehow the vast majority of Americans manage to avoid their dangerous pitfalls. If prohibition of alcohol was a horrible thing that had to be rectified then why the hypocrisy about marijuana?

Leave it to you to come along and make all the sense in the world.
Good post.

You make sense but legalizing MJ would mean law enforcement would loses much money so therefore MJ remains illegal.

GFY. He's a board-certified psychiatrist. People a f'ing dying and the the pot heads are out there talking about how safe marijuana is. Smoked pot. It's a drug and the risks are low. HOWEVER. Edibles are absorbed into the body much differently and in large doses can cause a psychosis.

http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/04/02/denver-coroner-man-fell-death-eating-marijuana-cookie/8519/

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ting-marijuana-candy-charged-with-murder

http://www.newsweek.com/deaths-prompt-colorado-crackdown-pot-infused-food-251833

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/denver-emergency-room-doctor-seeing-more-patients-marijuana-edibles

Everything is just peachy and people like you continue preach how safe marijuana is.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-continue-cover-up-of-marijuana-induced-mental-illness/

http://drthurstone.com/new-research-underscores-marijuanas-link-to-psychosis/

http://marijuana.com/news/2014/02/abc-news-claims-dabs-lead-to-psychosis-and-brain-damage/

Assume for the nonce that farming pot is as legal as farming corn or wheat. Further assume you have the proper soil and climate. Assume further that you could net, say, $100,000.00 annually.

How many here would not do it?

Be honest.

How many are dying from all types of marijuana abuse, compared to all those dying from cigarette and alcohol abuse...?

And how many who are opposed to the legalization of marijuana are also users of tobacco and alcohol...?

I can�t speak for all states but the ones with which I am familiar have a �per se� standard and a general standard to the effect of being impaired to the point of being unable to properly operate a vehicle.

The per se standard for alcohol is .08% BAC. Colorado adopted a �permissible inference� THC standard of 5ng/ml or higher, which is the barest minimum detectable in blood. The current issue is whether the 5ng standard actually correlates with the .08% BAC standard.



The standard field sobriety maneuvers work with THC intoxication as well as with alcohol. Right now here is no equivalent of the portable breath tester for THC. Lots of people are working on a minimally intrusive field test kit. Some are working on breath testers and I think that some are working on test kits similar to those used by diabetics. Aside from being a money maker for the person who patents the technology, it can be used by proponents of legalization because it takes away an �unknown� that can be used to oppose legalization. Of course, it will greatly assist the police as well when conducting maneuvers and determining impairment.



Don�t know about Colorado, but there is no �mandatory arrest� rule for federal violations by local police. A report can be sent to the feds or obtained by them and they can figure out if they want to do something with it. The feds are better at determining what their laws mean anyway, plus they have their own rules about grand juries and time frames for prosecution from time of arrest. The local police can certainly be subpoenaed to testify in a federal prosecution.



Can the license be used to hunt with archery gear? Does applying for a license to hunt establish probable cause or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person possesses firearms? It certainly seems relevant but may not be dispositive. The same issue arises with people convicted of domestic violence.

Other comments:

I have been trying to keep up with what is going on in Colorado because I live in a border state in which more than one quarter of the state population is within an easy drive of Colorado store bought pot.

I think that Colorado lawmakers got blindsided by the legalization. It was a ballot measure that got started as a grass roots campaign. The legislature probably would not have passed it. After the ballot measure passed, the legislature tried to clamp down on it by making it expensive and a revenue generator. (I don�t know about Washington�s situation.) Once people start growing their own at home, which is permitted in Colorado, I suspect that the tax revenue from state residents will decline.

Colorado and Washington are now experimental labs for how everything is going to work out in the long run. Data will become more readily available concerning the impact. Governments and business will learn the potential economic impact, whether from direct sales, taxation or things like additional tourism. The Denver Post has a section devoted to pot and pot issues. Because of the openness, studies are coming out every day concerning degree of impairment of alcohol versus pot versus cell phones. The issue involving edibles is mixed in there also. There are huge legal issues involving things like employment, lawyer regulation, financial institution money laundering rules, and housing laws in addition to DUI. These are largely caused or compounded by the fact that the stuff is still illegal federally. It is totally stupid to have the stuff illegal at one level and legal at another. The law should be consistent. Pick one, whatever the voters want, and stick with it.

I wonder what percentage of the nation�s population lives within an easy drive of Colorado or Washington? Unless the feds decide to put the hammer down again, it is really hard to stop people from getting the stuff at a store and creating the mental impression in the general public that it is no different than buying a Big Mac or a bottle of Jack Daniel�s. My perception may be skewed because of my proximity to over-the-counter sales, but it looks like to me like things are trending toward taking pot off Schedule I. Any politician of any party who wants to bring young people to the polls can use it as a campaign issue. Further, as more and more states �legalize� it either for medical or recreational purposes, it is going to be harder and harder for politicians to say that, when they get elected, they are going to shut it down. Don�t forget the campaign money or PAC ads from the businesses who profit from it directly or indirectly. That can go to the R�s as well as the D�s and L�s. Again, this is purely a personal perception, about like who is going to win an election or a sporting contest or how certain stocks will do (I am really bad at that), and maybe my perception is skewed.

By the way, I think that anyone involved in the manufacturing or sale of the stuff right now, including those in an advisory capacity and those taking money from them as service providers, landlords, etc. is downright crazy, as is anyone who openly flaunts using the stuff. Anyone who owns or possesses firearms and messes with the stuff for recreation or medicinal purposes is double crazy.

It is against the Law and anyone who uses or possesses Marijuana is a Prohibited person and is no longer allowed to own or possess firearms or ammunition.

No Thanks, I will do what I can to keep my Second Amendment Rights in tact. You go ahead and give up yours, no skin off my ass.

Add a zero and I still wouldn't do it.

Many, many things I wouldn't do for money. There is more to life than making money, how you do it and what you do with your time matters.

It would just be another commodity.

My grandfather on my mother's side raised tobacco as his main cash crop all of his life. He was a moral, church going man who raised 9 kids and put a few of them through college on that crop. Never smoked or chewed in his life that I know of, it was just what you raised as a farmer in North Carolina in those days.

I remember as a young kid visiting on summer vacation being pressed into "handing" duty, handing three tobacco leaves at a time to him to tie to stakes for hanging and drying in the tobacco barns, and how wonderful the inside of those barns smelled with the curing tobacco. At dinner and supper time we were strictly warned to wash our hands before eating since they would be covered with poisonous nicotine.

One of his sons (my uncle) took over the farm and with the market for tobacco diminished so much he and his sons now raise fresh cut flowers.

Just another farm crop like tobacco or hops or grapes for wine.

I'm replying to the original post only because I don't want to hurt some of our posters feelngs.

Anybody that believes decriminaliztion of marijuana by government control is a good thing is goofier that a shythouse rat.

People assume the marijuana today is the same as it was in the 60's. Then smoking 5% THC leaves in joints by hippy types was pretty harmless.

Modern marijuana can be highly concentrated using butane and the buds of the plants. People are producing 80%+ THC. Placing the concentrated butters and whats called dab into foods and now the big thing is e-cigerates. Think odorless "vaping" right next to you.

It is anything but the wild wood flower of yesteryear.

It took nearly 100 years to develop regulations of alcohol to an acceptable "leading cause of death in working age Americans."(link below)

Marijuana will require just as many regulations as alcohol production. To claim anything less is naive. One can make $100,000 a year producing marijuana but one can make $500,000 a year selling on the black market(illegal sales) what will some people be tempted to do?

To answer one other question, we do have a presumptive impairment amount of thc for operating a motor vehicle.

The leading cause of deaths comes from the cdc-http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/alcohol-abuse-leading-cause-death-working-age-amer/ngTYf/

You absolutely missed my point. I said assume it was legal. It would therefore not affect your 2nd rights or any other rights.

It's always a chuckle when the dopes try to get all serious and rational about something.

Maybe you don't have values or standards, some of us do.

I understand the LE agenda--keep it either illegal (supports lots of LE jobs) or have .gov control and tax it (supports lots of LE jobs). If you read some of your links (the ones that work) you will see that other drugs may have been responsible for those few bizarre cases.

I should have addressed the original question in my first post. From a regulatory standpoint, prohibiting something takes less regulation than allowing it. Allowing something with medical and societal consequences will take a LOT more governmental regulations than prohibiting it, and you still need a mechanism and expenditure of effort for dealing with the people who violate the new regulations. So, legalization will not lift the need for enforcement, and you can expect regulations to increase as well.

The fact that the alcohol lobby can convince dopeheads that the cops are the reason weed is illegal is a testimony to how stupid it makes them.

Well stated, and with that said, LE's stance is prohibit it...or not. We don't GAF. It ain't like stupid people would dissappear if dope did.

I doubt there have been any LE layoffs in Colorado or Washington. I know when gambling was legalized in Louisiana the State Police got to start up a whole new gaming division. I suspect it is like that everywhere with any new form of legalized sin.

The only way the poleece is gonna get layed off is if they actually start keeping criminals in jail.

LOL. I never thought about it that way, but I think you are correct, sir!

Stuff like that is on the Oregon Ballot initiatives...

ads that are arguing against them, highlight the dramatic increase in the number of kids going into ERs in Colorado since they passed it..

speaking of stuff, like Gummie Bears being legally sold for those with Medical Marijuana needs...

I'm against its legalization.. for a number of obvious reasons.. I see no social value in it at all...for starters...

Obviously I don't but that doesn't make my values any less valuable than your "values".

So so-called War on (some) Drugs has been the subterfuge to take the rest of your rights. Never mind that the prohibition of marijuana has been built on a foundation of lies.

Marijuana prohibition and it's enforcement has been more harmful to our society than legalization ever could have been. There are only two groups benefiting from this: 1) The govt as it grabs more power and stomps on your rights, and 2) the Cartels who get incredibly rich and engage in savage violence to protect their interests. The rest of us are caught in the middle.