1019 - Failed
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:33:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  1019 - Failed
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: 1019 - Failed  (Read 1839 times)
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 03, 2016, 02:31:13 PM »
« edited: August 29, 2016, 08:52:18 PM by Speaker Kent »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Darthebearnc (L-WI)
Logged
Former Senator Haslam2020
Haslam2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,345
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2016, 05:31:22 PM »

I like it.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2016, 05:35:00 PM »

*shouting from gallery* Free the reefer!

(Or at least remove the federal prohibition so that regions can legalize it without federal encroachment.)
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2016, 05:42:51 PM »

This bill seems unconstitutional. However, I agree with a.scott that we could simply remove the federal ban on it.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2016, 06:00:15 PM »
« Edited: August 03, 2016, 06:13:42 PM by Justice Dereich »

*shouting from gallery* Free the reefer!

(Or at least remove the federal prohibition so that regions can legalize it without federal encroachment.)

That second part would be constitutional. The rest? Telling the regions what they can and cannot ban is legally uhh...lets just say it provides a good example of why governments hate federalism and always try to take away powers from states and local governments.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2016, 01:50:27 PM »

I won't support this bill.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2016, 07:28:52 PM »

Yeah, Rep. Dar, I would like to propose an amended version:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2016, 07:55:09 PM »

Could the regions still keep it illegal if they so choose in this legislation?
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2016, 08:49:55 PM »

Could the regions still keep it illegal if they so choose in this legislation?
Not in the original bill, but they should be able to in the amendment.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2016, 09:13:28 PM »

I find the amendment unfriendly.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2016, 09:26:56 PM »

I'm sorry, I misspelled "friendly" in the original post.

I find the amendment unfriendly.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2016, 09:41:37 PM »

what does it mean "when said actions (do/don't) involve a person under twenty-five years of age" ?
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2016, 10:58:59 AM »

what does it mean "when said actions (do/don't) involve a person under twenty-five years of age" ?
My understanding is that, if a marijuana-related offense (eg. smoking in a location where it is illegal) involves a person under 25, they may only serve a maximum of one month, and only a maximum of 3 days if no person involved is under 25.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2016, 04:12:09 PM »

what does it mean "when said actions (do/don't) involve a person under twenty-five years of age" ?
My understanding is that, if a marijuana-related offense (eg. smoking in a location where it is illegal) involves a person under 25, they may only serve a maximum of one month, and only a maximum of 3 days if no person involved is under 25.

It looks like we are allowing imprisonment of people under 25 but not over 25.

Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2016, 04:22:12 PM »

what does it mean "when said actions (do/don't) involve a person under twenty-five years of age" ?
My understanding is that, if a marijuana-related offense (eg. smoking in a location where it is illegal) involves a person under 25, they may only serve a maximum of one month, and only a maximum of 3 days if no person involved is under 25.
It looks like we are allowing imprisonment of people under 25 but not over 25.
Doesn't look like it to me. I suppose we could make it clearer, since Section 1 doesn't mention prison at all.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2016, 04:29:05 PM »

Yeah, the bill is a bit unclear about that, so I'm amending it as follows:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, the punishments set forth in Section 2 only apply to the people distributing marijuana to under-twenty-five year olds, not the under-twenty-five year olds themselves. People under 25 who use marijuana are subject to the same punishments listed in Section 1 and no more.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2016, 03:43:53 PM »

Now it's even more confusing.

Can we just scrap this and legalize marijuana at the federal level?
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2016, 10:27:58 PM »

Now it's even more confusing.

Can we just scrap this and legalize marijuana at the federal level?
We can't keep the regions from banning it, though. But yeah, let's repeal the federal prohibition.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2016, 06:35:37 PM »

After looking around a little, it appears that the marijuana prohibition is a DEA rule, and can (and probably should) be repealed via executive order. I am looking for a motion to table this bill, as I don't believe that the Speaker can motion to table it.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2016, 07:32:05 PM »

I motion to table
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2016, 07:50:40 PM »

Looking for a second...
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2016, 07:55:04 PM »

I refuse to see this bill tabled.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2016, 07:57:14 PM »

After looking around a little, it appears that the marijuana prohibition is a DEA rule, and can (and probably should) be repealed via executive order. I am looking for a motion to table this bill, as I don't believe that the Speaker can motion to table it.
That sounds like a much more preferable option. Mr. President? Tongue
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2016, 01:36:12 PM »

Can we substitute a flat legalization through amendment, or would that require a separate bill?
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2016, 02:16:08 PM »

Can we substitute a flat legalization through amendment, or would that require a separate bill?
We could, but again, this seems to fall under the DEA's jurisdiction, so I feel it's best to leave this to the President.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.