Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2017, 07:13:05 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Virginia)
| | |-+  The Green Thread: Marijuana in the states
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: The Green Thread: Marijuana in the states  (Read 1605 times)
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2620
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2017, 02:51:23 pm »
Ignore

Representatives Tom Garrett (R-VA) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) have introduced bipartisan legislation to exclude marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, thus leaving states the authority to regulate the plant how best they see fit.

Should be interesting to see how many Republicans get behind this.  I'd expect it to get near-unanimous support from state delegations where it's been legalized and possible majority support from the Freedom Caucus.  I don't think every Democrat will vote for it, but I think this has a real chance at getting passed.  Fingers crossed.

I'm a bit curious how Greg Walden (R-02) would vote on something like this....

He went from being strongly opposed to medical marijuana, in direct contrast with many of the voters in his Republican House district to supporting medical marijuana rights in states where it is legal in 2014 as well as medical marijuana for veterans:

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/2133820-151/oregon-gop-like-nation-softening-on-medical-marijuana

http://marijuanapolitics.com/huge-win-veterans-medical-marijuana-oregon-congressman-earl-blumenauer/

His district opposed legalization, although it did win in the two largest population centers in his district, Jackson and Deschuttes Counties, as well as almost winning in heavily Republican Josephine County.

The Southern Oregon section of his district has a large illegal outdoor growing industry on public lands, much of it controlled by the drug cartels, which has a negative environmental and social impact.... this is a problem which has dramatically decreased now that recreational marijuana is legal in Oregon.

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/crops/pot/apublicmenace080810.htm

After observing one eradicated pot plantation after another during the flight, Walden concluded to no one in particular, "We used to grow timber."

Will Walden be one of the flip votes should there be any house will regarding supporting legalization in states where the voters have adopted this?

House members who voted for the Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment last year but against the McClintock full legalization amendment:



http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/10/state-marijuana-votes-could-end-federal-prohibition-in-2017/

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D]   CA
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R]   FL
Rep. Gwen Graham [D]   FL
Rep. Rob Woodall [R]   GA
Rep. Bob Dold [R]   IL
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R]   IL
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D]   MA
Rep. Bruce Poliquin [R]   ME
Rep. Debbie Dingell [D]   MI
Rep. Collin Peterson [D]   MN
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R]   MO
Rep. Ryan Zinke [R]   MT
Rep. Kevin Cramer [R]   ND
Rep. Brad Ashford [D]   NE
Rep. Peter King [R]   NY
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D]   NY
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D]   NY
Rep. Paul Tonko [D]   NY
Rep. Tom Reed II [R]   NY
Rep. Christopher Gibson [R]   NY
Rep. Richard Hanna [R]   NY
Rep. Lee Zeldin [R]   NY
Rep. Elise Stefanik [R]   NY
Rep. Daniel Donovan Jr. [R]   NY
Rep. Joyce Beatty [D]   OH
Rep. Greg Walden [R]   OR
Rep. Jim Cooper [D]   TN
Rep. John Duncan Jr. [R]   TN
Rep. Gene Green [D]   TX
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa [D]   TX
Rep. Marc Veasey [D]   TX
Rep. Filemon Vela [D]   TX
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R]   UT
Rep. Chris Stewart [R]   UT
Rep. Mia Love [R]   UT
Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. [R]   WI
Rep. Glenn Grothman [R]   WI
Rep. Alex Mooney [R]   WV
Reps. Corrine Brown (D-FL) and Vern Buchan (R-FL) both voted for the McClintock amendment but against the Rohrabacher amendment.

Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3270
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2017, 06:43:36 pm »
Ignore

Interesting that Tom garrett, from such a conservative district, sponsored that
Logged

For England, James?

No. For me.
MAINEiac4434
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 820
France


Political Matrix
E: -8.09, S: -4.61

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2017, 09:59:11 pm »
Ignore

Interesting that Tom garrett, from such a conservative district, sponsored that
He's quite libertarian, no?
Logged

"A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired." Robert Francis Kennedy



Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5085
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2017, 12:48:51 pm »

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-medical-marijuana-bill-would-outlaw-smokable-and-edible-cannabis-9190847

Quote
Yesterday, Fort Myers Rep. Ray Rodrigues finally unveiled the first medical weed regulations and they would ban people from smoking marijuana or using edibles. Patients would also be prohibited from vaporizing weed if they aren't terminally ill.

In fact, Rodrigues' bill is more restrictive than the laws that existed before Florida overwhelmingly voted to legalize medical weed.

Quote
The rest of Rodrigues' 61-page bill effectively treats medical marijuana patients as if they're registering to ingest uranium. Lawmakers included rules mandating that a medical cannabis patient submit his or her state driver's license and a second form of ID to obtain approval for medicinal weed. Patients could have their medical-pot licenses suspended if they're charged (not convicted) of any drug offense; the state could also revoke pot licenses once a patient is deemed to be "cured."

This is so disappointing. This goes completely against the spirit of the amendment. They are turning Amendment 2 into basically another sham "Southern-style" medical marijuana bill, where the only thing allowed is low-thc oils. Why can't they just accept the will of the voters here?

Looking at the amendment text, unless I missed something, it may actually be constitutional to limit actual administration methods like this:

http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/50438-3.pdf

However, one thing I did notice was that the amendment doesn't really permit the agency from making regulations on the way cannabis may be administered nor the form it can be sold in. So there may be some relief there.

Hopefully they modify this bill before passage to allow what the initiative intended to allow.
Logged

NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2620
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2017, 07:51:29 pm »
Ignore

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-medical-marijuana-bill-would-outlaw-smokable-and-edible-cannabis-9190847

Quote
Yesterday, Fort Myers Rep. Ray Rodrigues finally unveiled the first medical weed regulations and they would ban people from smoking marijuana or using edibles. Patients would also be prohibited from vaporizing weed if they aren't terminally ill.

In fact, Rodrigues' bill is more restrictive than the laws that existed before Florida overwhelmingly voted to legalize medical weed.

Quote
The rest of Rodrigues' 61-page bill effectively treats medical marijuana patients as if they're registering to ingest uranium. Lawmakers included rules mandating that a medical cannabis patient submit his or her state driver's license and a second form of ID to obtain approval for medicinal weed. Patients could have their medical-pot licenses suspended if they're charged (not convicted) of any drug offense; the state could also revoke pot licenses once a patient is deemed to be "cured."

This is so disappointing. This goes completely against the spirit of the amendment. They are turning Amendment 2 into basically another sham "Southern-style" medical marijuana bill, where the only thing allowed is low-thc oils. Why can't they just accept the will of the voters here?

Looking at the amendment text, unless I missed something, it may actually be constitutional to limit actual administration methods like this:

http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/50438-3.pdf

However, one thing I did notice was that the amendment doesn't really permit the agency from making regulations on the way cannabis may be administered nor the form it can be sold in. So there may be some relief there.

Hopefully they modify this bill before passage to allow what the initiative intended to allow.

1.) So what is the chance of something like this making it through the state legislature? 

2.) If so, what are the potential consequences for Floridian Republicans in the State House & Senate for deliberately undermining the intent and will of the voters on this issue?
Logged
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9789
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.81, S: -6.87

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2017, 07:58:53 pm »
Ignore

Whatever the Republicans want to pass through the legislature will get passed and signed. The consequences won't be felt at a state legislative level, but it could be something that so outrages Morgan that he announces his candidacy.
Logged

Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5085
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2017, 09:09:26 pm »

1.) So what is the chance of something like this making it through the state legislature?  

2.) If so, what are the potential consequences for Floridian Republicans in the State House & Senate for deliberately undermining the intent and will of the voters on this issue?

This is probably what I would call a "compounding problem," where it isn't big enough to cause a backlash on its own, but it will nicely augment other issues people have with Republicans to help turn them against the GOP on election day. Amendment 2 hasn't been implemented yet, so there is a lot less political risk to doing something like this.

This should be a big fat warning to anyone pushing complex ballot initiatives on issues like MM - never leave important parts even slightly ambiguous. Never expect the legislature to acquiese and accept that the people wanted this, no matter how much it passes by. This could have passed with 100% of the vote and Republicans would still be doing this for the same reason they are now trying to make initiated amendments require 67% of the vote to be approved (up from 60%) - they don't care what voters want, and the politicians only care what the voters think when they think they may lose power. They believe that because they have a majority in the legislature, that they have a blank check because clearly they were so wise that the people picked them, and when the people voice their displeasure or try to go around them, the first response is to try and remove the voters' ability to do anything, whether it be voter suppression or making initiatives impossible to pass.

I have to say again - I'm really surprised and really disappointed that Morgan missed something as important as this. If this bill passes with these restrictions, then A2 will basically have been a complete waste of time and money.
Logged

NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2620
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2017, 01:39:19 am »
Ignore

1.) So what is the chance of something like this making it through the state legislature?  

2.) If so, what are the potential consequences for Floridian Republicans in the State House & Senate for deliberately undermining the intent and will of the voters on this issue?

This is probably what I would call a "compounding problem," where it isn't big enough to cause a backlash on its own, but it will nicely augment other issues people have with Republicans to help turn them against the GOP on election day. Amendment 2 hasn't been implemented yet, so there is a lot less political risk to doing something like this.

This should be a big fat warning to anyone pushing complex ballot initiatives on issues like MM - never leave important parts even slightly ambiguous. Never expect the legislature to acquiese and accept that the people wanted this, no matter how much it passes by. This could have passed with 100% of the vote and Republicans would still be doing this for the same reason they are now trying to make initiated amendments require 67% of the vote to be approved (up from 60%) - they don't care what voters want, and the politicians only care what the voters think when they think they may lose power. They believe that because they have a majority in the legislature, that they have a blank check because clearly they were so wise that the people picked them, and when the people voice their displeasure or try to go around them, the first response is to try and remove the voters' ability to do anything, whether it be voter suppression or making initiatives impossible to pass.

I have to say again - I'm really surprised and really disappointed that Morgan missed something as important as this. If this bill passes with these restrictions, then A2 will basically have been a complete waste of time and money.

Bolded for response...

This is part of the reason that the Oregon Marijuana Legalization initiative passed with such overwhelming support, and there have never been any legal challenges....

The 2014 Oregon Marijuana Legalization initiative was based on the "lessons learned" from both the positives and negatives from the Colorado and Washington initiatives.

Because it was such a carefully crafted piece of legislation, that allowed a significant degree of local (County/City) controls regarding the existence of medical & recreational facilities within local communities, mandatory testing of potential chemical contaminants from suppliers, etc it won in a landslide, even in many traditionally Conservative Republican parts of the state, not to mention the "soccer mom's" of places like Lake Oswego.

Unlike Florida, many Western States allow items to be placed on the ballot relatively easily, and can/will/have flip out in the "ballot box" if they feel that Politicians are unilaterally overturning direct democracy....

So, in the event that the Republican dominated State Government of Florida goes this route, is there a potential that it will dramatically increase turnout among Millennial voters in 2018, and potentially be the type of issue that will dramatically increase turnout among non-regular voters. (Look at how Republicans used the culture war issues of Abortion and Gay Rights in 2004 to turnout voters for example).





Logged
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5085
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2017, 01:48:55 am »

So, in the event that the Republican dominated State Government of Florida goes this route, is there a potential that it will dramatically increase turnout among Millennial voters in 2018, and potentially be the type of issue that will dramatically increase turnout among non-regular voters. (Look at how Republicans used the culture war issues of Abortion and Gay Rights in 2004 to turnout voters for example).

Probably not. I think the cannabis (medical or recreational) legalization boost is mostly a media construct. There may be some effects, but not really worthy placing emphasis on. Millennials have heavy support for ending prohibition, but I don't think it has the same galvanizing effect as other hot topic issues.

If Millennial participation in 2018 sees a huge jump, I think it'll probably have more to do with Trump than MM.
Logged

Mondale Won 1 State
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1621
United States
View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2017, 07:59:21 pm »
Ignore

Marijuana legalization champions in R.I. legislature again say they have the votes

The two state lawmakers who have long led the charge to legalize marijuana in Rhode Island on Tuesday said they have clear majority support in both chambers to pass their bills if the House and Senate leadership allow the legislation a vote.

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170321/marijuana-legalization-champions-in-ri-legislature-again-say-they-have-votes
Logged

Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5085
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2017, 08:17:30 pm »

I'm still skeptical, especially now that Sessions is AG, thus giving lawmakers an excuse as to why they shouldn't do it. The reality is, public support has been there for legalization for some years now but lawmakers, most from older generations, are still stuck in the old way of thinking and in some cases, are too heavily influenced by various special interests. It might be years longer before we see movement on this by state lawmakers. I mean, hell, Vermont shot it down last year and Massachusetts just recently passed a bill delaying implementation of their legalization measure until 2018, which is no surprise because state officials fought that measure tooth and nail. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to slow it down even more.

I'm just hoping the results of legalization in the states that recently did so, namely California, will finally be the needed push to get the ball moving in state legislatures a couple years from now. As it currently stands, we're starting to run out of viable states where legalization can pass by initiative alone.
Logged

Green Line
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3377
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2017, 08:32:27 pm »
Ignore

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-marijuana-legalization-proposal-met-20170322-story.html

Tiptoeing around the issue in Illinois, as usual.  Two Democrats say they will bring it up for "hearings and feedback" but will not vote on it this year.
Logged

Virginia
Virginia C
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5085
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2017, 01:28:40 pm »

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/03/22/legal-pot-bill-clears-key-committee-in-vermont-house

Quote
A bill that would legalize marijuana in Vermont is headed to the House floor next  week, where leaders expect it will pass.

The House Judiciary Committee voted out the bill, H.170, by an 8-3 vote on Wednesday.

Quote
The bill is similar to a law in Washington, D.C. It would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for adults, but would not allow sales of the drug in stores or lounges. It would allow Vermonters to possess up to two mature and four immature plants.

I am extremely supportive of legalization but this type of "half-legalization" kind of sucks. Allowing everything but actual sales just increases the profits and power of the black market.

I suppose it might be better than nothing, especially since I think Vermont might be encouraged to allow sales soon after once they begin to realize the tax revenue they are passing up.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 01:30:11 pm by Virginia »Logged

Interlocutor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 445


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.04

P

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2017, 11:05:13 pm »
Ignore

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/03/22/legal-pot-bill-clears-key-committee-in-vermont-house

Quote
A bill that would legalize marijuana in Vermont is headed to the House floor next  week, where leaders expect it will pass.

The House Judiciary Committee voted out the bill, H.170, by an 8-3 vote on Wednesday.

Quote
The bill is similar to a law in Washington, D.C. It would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for adults, but would not allow sales of the drug in stores or lounges. It would allow Vermonters to possess up to two mature and four immature plants.

I am extremely supportive of legalization but this type of "half-legalization" kind of sucks. Allowing everything but actual sales just increases the profits and power of the black market.

I suppose it might be better than nothing, especially since I think Vermont might be encouraged to allow sales soon after once they begin to realize the tax revenue they are passing up.

I'm sure they'll will wise up if/when Massachusetts & Maine open up their stores
Logged

Franken/Warren 2020

CA Governor, 2018: Gavin Newsom (Unless Eric Garcetti enters the race)
CA-49, 2018: Col. Doug Applegate
VA Governor, 2017: Tom Perriello
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines