Talk Elections

---

Sponsor: Marokai Blue

I ask the Senate to consider amending the bill so that you must be 18 to do any of this.

I would like to offer this as an amendment.

Then you can offer this, Jake. If you don't like the wording, feel free to change it. :)

I'm feeling extremely lazy today :P

x20RP12

I accept the amendment as friendly, and other Senators have 24 hours to object.

As a longtime warrior in the failing war on drugs, I support this measure.  I would offer one amendment:

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 for citizens 18 and over throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

In order to possess, consume, or sell it, someone is going to have to transport and you should make that legal as well or you are not really making it legal.

My one concern is whether the Federal Government can make it legal everywhere.  The feds can repeal their statutes, and make it legal in all areas under federal control, but this bill would also repeal regional and local statutes and ordinances.  That I do believe would be an overreach by the federal government.

Think beer.  Prohibition did not work and it was repealed.  However, there still exists towns that are dry (as much as I think that is stupid).  I do believe that the bill should be amended so as not to overreach into regional rights.  I am willing to work with the sponsor on an amendment.

I fully agree. The Constitution does not grant the Atlasian Senate the power to ban marijuana in the entire country. I admit that I am not a legal expert, but it seems to me that the following part of the Constitution would be violated if the bill were not amended:

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7

7. No Law requiring any action to be taken or to be not taken by a Region shall be passed, except to preserve the rights of the Senate or of the People enumerated under the Constitution.

Under the logical extension of the interpretation of that clause, the federal government is unable to make any product at all legal or illegal. (And I say this as someone who considers myself a regionalist.)

What I think people often forget in reading that clause is "except to preserve the rights of the Senate or the people enumerated under the Constitution." The Constitution grants the Senate all kinds of different powers (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Third_Constitution#Section_5:_Powers_of_the_Senate), a half dozen or so of which certainly justify the uniform legalization of marijuana.

I also accept Junkie's amendment as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object to that as well. :P

I object to the age restriction.

I only see one of the 32 listed "powers of the Senate" that could possibly (and I want to stress that word "possibly") represent a case of "preserving the rights of the Senate ...", and that is Clause 4:

4. To provide an area of Freedom, Security and Justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted.

All the other clauses do not justify a legalization of marijuana in the entire country against the will of a particular region. Maybe you were exaggerating a bit when saying there are at least half a dozen clauses, or maybe I subconsciously avoid to see them because I don't like what they say :P

...

Do you have something to say?

What's there to object to...?

Two amendments, as shown above.

Amendment to remove clause 3 from Section 2.
Amendment to remove clause 4 from Section 2.

What is your problem with my amendment?  I would like to know so that we could work something out or maybe I could address any concerns you have.

Well no kidding, Captain Obvious. I'm asking you why you object to them, there's nothing wrong with them. I think you like to object to things just because you can.

I stand for regional rights and do not support forcing regions to abide by arbitrary and impractical age restrictions.

If you stand for regional rights, then I assume you oppose legalization of marijuana on the federal level? I'm merely asking out of interest.

Assume what you want. It seems most people like to make assumptions.

That's fair, I disagree that there should be no age requirement, but I understand your objection.  What age would you support?  Additionally, my amendment allowed for the transportation.  It is hard to buy, sell, consume and/or grow legally if no one is allowed to transport the product.  What is the objection to my amendment?

I would not support any age restrictions at the federal level. I don't have an objection to your amendment.

See, I don't know why you're acting as though I'm trying to grill you. I'm just asking out of curiousity if you support the legazilation of marijuana at the federal level. If you don't want to answer my question simply because you don't like me, then I guess that's your choice. But I'm not trying to corner you or anything here.

You did not ask me anything. You stated your own opinions and followed it with a question mark. That doesn't mean you're asking a question.


Regardless, I don't know what that has to do with this debate. I've stated my positions on this bill very clearly.

I was asking it as a question - I'm sorry you didn't take it that way.

I was curiously interested in your opinion because if you had the same opinion I had, I had a potential amendment suggestion I was hoping to work with you on. I guess I'll have to seek someone else out on it.

Ah, I see.

So, what makes marijuana different from alcohol necessitating an age restriction? The Older Sibling Lobby must be throwing the cash around crazy.

I've already given my reasons for objecting to an amendment that no one has been able to explain the necessity of.

This is a preposterous position to take that makes absolutely no sense. If you don't want to force regions to abide by an age requirement because that's over the line, then you shouldn't even support this bill at all. The whole point of this bill is to make marijuana legalization untouchable by the regions, and it's something you once said yourself that you supported. How is that not anti-region to some degree?

---

Regardless of that hypocrisy, we're now voting on the following amendment:

---

Aye.

Nay.

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

I'm interpreting these as one single amendment, and objecting. We'll vote on them after we vote on the next amendment (Junkie's) since this is apparently going to be a fun bill!

aye

They are two separate amendments, bud.

Deciding to be as annoying as possible? Why don't you just introduce amendment to strike one letter at a time, while you're at it.

Fine. They're two amendments. Even though there is no reason at all why they have to be.

Since you're here, why don't you pop into your "Sanity" bill and have the balls to defend it? A debate over there would be appreciated.

They must be two separate amendments so that the chances of passage aren't tied to each other. You know that though, so stop playing games.

Nay. I oppose this bill on the grounds of regional rights, but if regions are stripped of their power to ban marijuana, they should at least retain the right to set their own age limits.

Sorry - I should have clarified it more when I wrote the amendment.

My purpose wasn't to create a national age limit. It was just to make sure that age limit was over the age of 18.

Perhaps an amendment that regions may adjust the age allowed, but there should at least be a bar it's set at, either 16, 17, or 18. I don't think it's wise to have little kids out doing thug work and smoking marijuana. Just me. ;)

You should've known better than to take on the issue of marijuana when Napoleon is still a Senator. The hot political topics of drugs and parties are his specialty.

Nay

I refuse to support a nation mandate that marijuana must be legalized in all regions and further refuse to support mandating no older than 18 as the age limit. This amendment only strengthens the limitations on what regions may outlaw, therefore I oppose it.

At least your position is consistent.

Consistent is keeping age restrictions up to the regions as we do with alcohol.

Consistent would be reliably opposing something that infringes on regional rights when you suddenly claim to be so concerned about them. The whole reason this bill exists is because you've complained, numerous times, about regional attempts to ban or restrict the sale of marijuana. You have no problem telling any region that wants to restrict the substance to piss off, but it's an outrage, positively an outrage, when the bill then proposes a set-in-stone age limit.

Your position here is either hypocritical, or you just can't help yourself from using insanely hyperbolic language every time you get an opportunity and it just comes off that way.

aye

Nay on the amendment.

Vote on the amendment currently at 4 - 4.

Nay

4 Ayes, 5 Nays, and several days after the voting started, that amendment has failed.

I now open up a vote on amendment #2, from Junkie. (Two more after this, hurray.)


Aye.

Aye

Aye


I thought you opposed both amendments?

Nay

aye

No

Aye

...

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.

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

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

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.

Nay

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.

Add the word transportation to that and I agree

What made you change your mind, if I may?

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

You're mature.

Transportation is added.

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.

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.

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. :P

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.

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.

Christ, it was my fault.  I wanted to include transportation and was cutting and pasting.  Marokai is not to blame.  That being said, I also did not think much about it because I did not think an 18 year old rule was so bad.

If it will move us forward, change my vote, move onto the next amendment.  Fights like this are really killing any enjoyment I have for this game.

I'm surprised someone around here actually has any left. :P



The amendment is currently failing. Senators have 24 hours, etc etc.

Junkie's amendment has failed.

We're now voting on amendment #3:


Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

---

Nay.

Please guys. If we're going to legalize something like this, we should tax it just the same. It could raise an incredible amount of revenue, and it's only fair that we include some sort of minimum federal tax that keeps it in line with taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Nay, though I'd prefer more like 10,000% :P

nay

Aye

Nay

Nay

Nay

This amendment is now failing. 24 hours' notice.

I believe there is already a 25% tax on marijuana, per this act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Amendment_to_the_Marijuana_Legalization_and_Taxation_Act).

Indeed, which this Act replaces with a more consolidated level of marijuana legalization and tax law. The reduction of the overall tax on marijuana products is compensated by bringing marijuana cigarettes in line with tobacco cigarette taxes.

---

And the amendment as failed. We are not voting on amendment #4:

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

---

Nay

Nay
Sorry, but I think that an integral part of any drug law liberalization scheme should be to assist those who become dependent.

Aye

Nay.

Since marijuana is already legal everywhere I'll support money for treatment, but I have some mixed feelings about this type of legislation in general because it seems sort of stupid to legalize something and then go and spend a bunch of money trying to convince people not to do it.

But here, it's already legal.

Nay.

This amendment is now failing.

I am offering this as a friendly amendment:

Section 3: Miscellaneous

1. The RG shall receive a $50,000 bonus for the year 2012, as a reward for a great job handling an excessive workload.
2. A documentary about the life and times of Governor, Senator, and President Bgwah shall be produced and distributed for viewing in 8th grade classrooms, for educational and inspirational purposes.

Why can't you just introduce this as separate legislation? I'd support the first one, but I don't know about the second one...:P

It doesn't need to be separate I.e. it would take up an entire slot...

But it's completely unrelated to the legislation...I know you put it in 'Miscellaneous' but still...

If we do it this way we can move Senate business along faster.

As PPT, I strike that amendment as frivolous. Take it up elsewhere, please, Napoleon. We've already had too many amendments take up time in this bill. Senate business would move faster if we didn't have to constantly vote on separate things here, none of which have passed.

Other amendment:

Insert "transportation" between possession and sale in Section 2 Clause 1.

Nay on Amendment 4.

Senate business would move faster if you accepted them as friendly instead of trolling!

Ugh.

Do you have something to say?

Yes, I do. I think it's ridiculous that this bill has taken up 7 full pages and literally nothing has been accomplished. It's like indirect filibustering or something.

Defeating bad provisions has been accomplished. It isn't my fault that some bad amendments were offered. The bill didn't improve but at least I could do my part to keep it from getting worse. That's why we have ten Senate seats, so that a variety of opinions can be taken into consideration.

aye

Nay on #4.

It is getting hard to figure out what is going on this bill.  I honestly thought that this was a commonsense bill that would get a lot of support.

I can only speak for myself but I find it wrong to target specific lifestyles for taxation. I don't like tying the government's revenue to a social engineering experiment.

It's actually really easy, since nothing so far has changed in the damn thing. We've been busy voting every single change down. :P

Can I please motion to move to a final vote so we can just finish this damn bill?

Amendment #4 has now failed.

---

I accept as friendly, Senators have 24 hours to object.

---

We're getting close, finally. If no one objects by this time tomorrow, I'll move it to a final vote.

I actually think the idea of putting extras on bills, like Napoleon did, brings an interesting part to the game. Considering how much it's done in RL, I wouldn't deem it frivolous, and am surprised it hasn't really been done yet. It also would save slots.

I can sort of see your point, but the reason it's done in RL is because the legislative process grinds out substantial bills so slowly that to get anything accomplished most of the time they have to pack bills with unrelated little things. In Atlasia, usually a bill's passage only takes a few days and then we move on. In RL, it could take months for a bill to be written, pass committees, be debated, amended, wrangled over, passed, and signed.

What Marokai said.

The amendment has been adopted, and I'm now opening this up for a final vote. (I find it amazing we just spent a ton of time studiously voting on amendment after amendment and the only thing that's changed in the end is one word.)

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain:

---

Aye

Nay

Nay

Why the hell are you voting nay on this? This changes almost no actual law! It, in fact, reduces taxes on most marijuana products, and does exactly what you said we needed to do awhile ago in making marijuana law uniform throughout the country!

Care to demonstrate how it reduces taxes? I would be willing to change my vote.

Alright, I see. I'll vote Aye, though I would prefer no taxes at all.

Hilariously soon, I know. Change my vote to Nay.

This is ridiculous. The entire point of this bill was to A) Consolidate marijuana law, and B) Make it uniform throughout the regions. It doesn't result in a net raise in taxes anywhere, and the latter is something you were complaining about us needing during the Mideast's debate over banning marijuana. You were what motivated me to write this in the first place.

I am thinking about my vote and discussing it with colleagues and constituents. I'm concerned with clause 4, which I find to be wasteful spending.

Marijuana is already legal everywhere, you know.

/sigh

Nay

aye

Another bill falling victim to Suddenly Nay. It amazes me that a bill that only barely changes taxes, adds clarity to current law, and cleans up the statute, is absolutely positively unacceptable and how dare we consider passing this horrendous bill that will wreak havoc on us all.

I tried to compromise and make positive amendments to this bill. No one seemed to care.

I can't help but feel like I'm being constantly blindsided around here lately. People turn on a dime from liking things to hating things to liking things back to hating things, and others sit around not saying a peep and then rise up in opposition to something from literally out of nowhere.

My expectations of this Senate's behavior is constantly being turned upside down. Whatever 'positive amendments' you wanted to make to this bill were A) Trying to make marijuana completely untaxed, which is preposterous, or B) Getting upset that some of the money goes to rehab centers.

OH THE HORROR. REHAB CENTERS.

I think this is a sound bill.  I think the sale and use of marijuana should be uniformly legal throughout Atlasia.

And though I would prefer to use the majority of tax revenues from marijuana on rehabilitation centers and drug use awareness programs, I think this bill strikes a good balance.

I trust the president's judgment, so please change my vote to Aye.

I voted against this bill because it makes marijuana legal throughout the country, stripping regions of their authority to regulate marijuana as they see fit. That's something that I do not support, and I suspect that that's why the other Senators voted Nay.

Aye

I am very torn on this.

I believe the legalisation of marijuana is an inevitability, however, I equally support the rights of the regions to determine what happens within their borders.

If marijuana is legal, then it should be taxed and revenues used for positive ends.

I'm leaning toward aye... but that's only a slight lean.

Aye, with reservations.

Did Snowguy resign or is he just MIA?

He last posted in this thread one week ago. The last time this bill was debated was one week ago. The vote ended less than 24 hours ago. I don't see what is MIA about that...

X Snowguy716

I'm glad the bill passed.