Consolidated Marijuana Regulation Act [Law'd]

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Aye

Aye

I thought you opposed both amendments?

[TJ in Wisco]

Nay

[bgwah]

aye

[Senator Napoleon]

Aye

Aye

I thought you opposed both amendments?

No

[Junkie]

Aye

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Aye

Aye

I thought you opposed both amendments?

No

...

Nay.

Alcohol age restrictions are left up to the regions. We ought to be consistent.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Nay on the amendment. I really don't think that we should be doing this on a federal level. I just don't think that that works well for drug issues.

[Senator Napoleon]

Aye

Aye

I thought you opposed both amendments?

No

...

Nay.

Alcohol age restrictions are left up to the regions. We ought to be consistent.

What is your point? That was a completely different amendment.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

So it's okay to regulate marijuana based on age, but not alcohol?

[Senator Napoleon]

Right, change my vote to Nay.

It should have been obvious to the PPT that Junkie was only trying to add one word.

If you have a point, make it next time. I don't like playing games.

[MOPolitico]

Nay

[TJ in Wisco]

In order to deal with the age question, I would like to propose the following amendment because the current bill could be interpreted to mean that marijuana must be legalized for people of all ages throughout Atlasia.

Section 2: Regulation and Re-Affirming Legalization

1. The possession, sale, and consumption of marijuana, and the plants needed for its processing, shall be legal throughout the Republic of Atlasia. Regions may impose age restrictions on its legality.

[Junkie]

Add the word transportation to that and I agree

[Senator Napoleon]

Add the word transportation to that and I agree

What made you change your mind, if I may?

[President Marokai]

Right, change my vote to Nay.

It should have been obvious to the PPT that Junkie was only trying to add one word.

If you have a point, make it next time. I don't like playing games.

It's okay, Napoleon. I just assumed you were high again.

[Senator Napoleon]

Right, change my vote to Nay.

It should have been obvious to the PPT that Junkie was only trying to add one word.

If you have a point, make it next time. I don't like playing games.

It's okay, Napoleon. I just assumed you were high again.

You're mature.

[TJ in Wisco]

Transportation is added.

Section 2: Regulation and Re-Affirming Legalization

1. The possession, sale, transportation, and consumption of marijuana, and the plants needed for its processing, shall be legal throughout the Republic of Atlasia. Regions may impose age restrictions on its legality.

[Junkie]

Add the word transportation to that and I agree

What made you change your mind, if I may?

Sure.  I am in favor of legalizing most if not all drugs as they only serve to feed as the currency of power for criminal organizations and gangs.  But I want to make sure that it makes sense, thus adding transportation.

I do believe that the age should be 18, but could understand local laws that might want to allow use with a parent's permission, such as Wisconsin does with alcohol (any age by the way, no floor on it which is just silly in my view).

That being said, I am still a little stuck on the regional rights issue.  I am still reading my notes from the previous SC cases on this issue as well as looking at previous statutes.  The main reason I am agreeing at this point, is if I do support this bill, I want to make it make sense.

Now, and I am just pointing this out, while I can see the regional rights argument of some here, I do not believe it is a realistic argument coming from you as you were the sponsor of the bill that legalizing cocaine.  How could it be a violation of a regions rights to impose an age limit on marijuana but not a violation to totally decriminalize the possession of cocaine (while at the same time still making it illegal to sell it).

This is not an attack but rather just a spelling out of my thinking as I attempt to weigh all the sides on this issue, contribute to making the bill workable, while still trying to rectify this bill with legal precedent, the constitution, and my own personal beliefs.

Hope that clears it up.

[Jayhawker]

So its Marokais fault for not being able to get inside Junkies head and assume his amendment referred only to transportation, and not the age restriction too? Uh...no need to play blame game.

[President Marokai]

So its Marokais fault for not being able to get inside Junkies head and assume his amendment referred only to transportation, and not the age restriction too? Uh...no need to play blame game.

I'm not telepathic, so shame on me.

[President Marokai]

Those vote is currently at 4-4, for the record. If Junkie intended on his vote to be changed as nay, he'll have to reiterate that more clearly. Otherwise, we're stuck.

[Senator Napoleon]

So its Marokais fault for not being able to get inside Junkies head and assume his amendment referred only to transportation, and not the age restriction too? Uh...no need to play blame game.

I'm not telepathic, so shame on me.

You're willing to count votes while merely "assuming" there is a given number of Senators at the time, but you can't assume the bolder text in an offered amendment is the proposed change? Wow.

[President Marokai]

So its Marokais fault for not being able to get inside Junkies head and assume his amendment referred only to transportation, and not the age restriction too? Uh...no need to play blame game.

I'm not telepathic, so shame on me.

You're willing to count votes while merely "assuming" there is a given number of Senators at the time, but you can't assume the bolder text in an offered amendment is the proposed change? Wow.

Tender announced his retirement, there's movement already to find a way to replace him, and he's taken absolutely no action in the Senate whatsoever. It's not exactly an unreasonable assumption to make.

Junkie proposed an amendment with all of that text within it, and at the time, the age restriction seemed to me like it was going to pass uncontroversially before you decided to bicker against it and then fling out two other amendments that had no reason to be separate. I had no reason to think with his amendment that he meant only to include transportation to the bill. It was his error more than it was mine.

[Senator Napoleon]

Two different changes deserve two different votes. It doesn't take a genius to figure that much out. Besides, the Senate agreed with me on the age restriction amendment. I just want to improve the bill.

[President Marokai]

Two different changes deserve two different votes. It doesn't take a genius to figure that much out. Besides, the Senate agreed with me on the age restriction amendment. I just want to improve the bill.

It is not my place to just edit someone's proposed amendment because I think they meant something else. If I ever did that to you, you would've tried to start some sort of "impeach Marokai" contest and called it a gross abuse of power.

If it's in the text, it's an amendment. Them's the rules.