Consolidated Marijuana Regulation Act [Law'd]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Marokai Blue

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

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, a half dozen or so of which certainly justify the uniform legalization of marijuana.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

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!

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

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!

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vote on the amendment currently at 4 - 4.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.



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

[Marokai Backbeat]

Junkie's amendment has failed.

We're now voting on amendment #3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This amendment is now failing. 24 hours' notice.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I believe there is already a 25% tax on marijuana, per this 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

This amendment is now failing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

This amendment is now failing.

Amendment #4 has now failed.

Other amendment:

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

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

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

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