The Green Thread: Marijuana in the states

[Virginiá]

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.

Honestly, I'm not really convinced that will pass. It is basically legalization at the federal level, and probably the best way right now to get the feds off the backs of states that legalized is to do the same thing the Rohrabacher amendment did for medical marijuana: prohibit the DoJ from spending money to interfere with state legalization. This kind of amendment almost passed in 2015:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/03/house-votes-to-ban-some-pot-law-enforcement-cut-dea-budget

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, this doesn't solve the banking issue the industry faces, but it's a step in the right direction. Until Republicans become less dependent on old voters who still very much form the backbone of anti-cannabis attitudes in this country, it is hard to see them doing something as bold as ending federal prohibition.

Then again, I'm a pessimist when it comes to this stuff

[Virginiá]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Virginiá]

http://norml.org/news/2017/03/02/nevada-lawmakers-moving-forward-with-expedited-plan-for-adult-use-marijuana-sales

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to see at least one state isn't being dicks about this. Also, regarding California - if the deadline is baked into the statute's text and regulatory agencies are not given the ability to override, which it doesn't seem like they are, then the legislature cannot delay it unless they send a measure back to the voters to approve. CA has strict rules on "legislative tampering" - meaning initiatives can't be modified solely by the state govt.

[Virginiá]

But for people like Sessions, I think this is clearly seen as a moral issue more than a medical issue, though it's also generational and that's why I think we'll see more marijuana-friendly legislation from Congress and the states as older politicians from both parties are steadily replaced by younger ones.  I think eventually this won't be a partisan issue.

Absolutely. While he was extended an invite to view Colorado's system first hand, I don't really think Sessions cares if it works or not, if it makes a ton of money or not, if it reduces opioid use or if it helps people manage pain/nausea/etc. Sessions just doesn't want it legal. Period. He genuinely doesn't seem to care what benefits it has, and often tries to delegitimize any good aspects of cannabis consumption. If cannabis hadn't received such strong public support and brought in a ton of tax revenue for various states, I'm sure the Trump administration would have moved quickly to dismantle any semblance of legalization in this country, possibly for medical marijuana as well.

This is what drives me up the wall with anti-marijuana crusaders like Sessions. They don't care about any of the benefits. They just don't like cannabis and they'll make up their own facts & ignore real ones to bolster their position.

The only way to fight back against people like them on this issue is to make sure they never have any power to actually implement their failed ideas.

[Virginiá]

Kind of what I was expecting, really.  Scott told the legislature to toughen penalties for stoned driving and giving pot to children, and fund more for regulation and education.  So it ain't over yet.

EDIT: VT legislature doesn't convene until January.  Ugh.

I don't get why they couldn't have just done that from the start. Now, granted, I don't exactly know what Gov. Scott meant by "toughen penalties" for those two things, but it doesn't sound unreasonable.

But, whatever. It's probably going to happen there sooner than later, unless Vermont wants to give up all that potential tax revenue. Save for Maine and Massachusetts both somehow nullifying the legalization measures passed last year, New England will soon be flooded with weed and anyone still holding out is just going to miss out on the good times and dank profits

[Virginiá]

Rosenstein talks down pot, suggests possible changes to the Cole memo in the future, Tom Wolf tells Sessions to back off.

Per Rosenstein: I don't know what "it’s a very complicated issue for us" means.  Probably more empty rhetoric since Congress has its finger on a lot of this and I don't think they have the appetite to sue the states they represent.

It's possible such actions could expedite the implementation of a funding ban on prosecutions or investigations related to cannabis in legalized states, similar to the current Rohrabacher–Farr amendment.

-

Also, I forgot to post this when I read it, but:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/florida-politics-blog/fl-reg-medical-marijuana-passes-20170609-story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately those snakes still kept the smoking ban in, although I'm not sure how you would enforce that so long as actual smokeable herb is able to be sold.

I hope the eventual lawsuits filed over this work out, as these lawmakers are blatantly going against the spirit of the amendment - an amendment that passed with massive support. It really bugs me that they just can't accept what the people voted for. If 71% of the state votes for something, those lawmakers ought to properly and fairly implement it, even if they don't personally agree. Their personal position on this should be irrelevant.

[Virginiá]

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/marijuana/2017/07/08/nevada-fire-resources/452606001/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like legalization is a massive success in Nevada so far. Perhaps too successful!

[Virginiá]

This is going to soon become a lot more ubiquitous, so I won't post about it much, but:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/342754-tax-revenue-for-legal-weed-sales-in-colorado-exceeds-500-million

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it looks like they could be in for over or about 220 million in tax revenue. Just for Colorado. Imagine a state like California, where I think the total tax revenue was projected to hit over a billion.

Honestly, it still boggles my mind how other states are passing on this opportunity to tax a substance people are already using en masse. If I could say something to them, it would be: Face it. Your side lost. Whether you like it or not, cannabis prohibition is coming to a close. Might as well fill some budget holes with sales taxes on it or stupidly pass on it out of stubbornness.

[Virginiá]

Advocates eye constitutional convention as path to legalizing marijuana in New York

No doubt I'm excited to see if they can actually pull that off. A convention opens up all sorts of possibilities, including a significant expansion of voter access laws that have been previously blocked. That and basically everything else progressives can't get due to a Republican state Senate and a Governor more interested in a split-legislature and weak "half-win"'s to burnish his 2020 profile.

With that in mind, legalization proponents would do well to try and draw in advocates for other issues (like single payer) to help up their chances of success.

[Virginiá]

Shockingly, not much has changed here. Here in SoCal, the only places that had dispensaries opened today were Palm Springs, Cathedral City, San Diego, and Santa Ana. West Hollywood starts selling by Wednesday, Los Angeles won't be giving out permits till later this month, and Moreno Valley will sell in the summer. For the time being, I gotta drive 45-60 minutes to find a permitted dispensary

Everywhere else has either completely banned it or is in "wait and see" mode. Hasn't stopped the existing/illegal medical dispensaries from opening their doors to everyone 21+ without a rec though

How can that be if it was legalized statewide?  Are city governments flat-out refusing to grant permits?

This is something that really pisses me off. Unless a city or county flat out voted against the legalization initiative to begin with, they should not be allowed to ban or significantly curtail dispensaries unless they put a measure doing so on the ballot for voters to approve in a high turnout general election (to avoid attempts to guarantee an outcome by 'selecting' a lower turnout electorate of old people). To ban dispensaries despite your town and/or county voting to legalize is just politicians nullifying the wish of their citizens simply because they can't accept that their old, crusty views are no longer acceptable to their constituents.

It's bad enough we have Old Man Sessions scheming to take away the progress we have made. The last thing we need is officials at the local level playing games too

[Virginiá]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-hampshire/articles/2018-01-09/new-hampshire-house-to-vote-on-marijuana-legalization-bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder how far this will get.

[Virginiá]

It's nice to see lawmakers finally breaking with generations of anti-cannabis tradition, and I suppose this is a good first step, but not only leaving but encouraging the black market is really a bad way to go about this. It's legalization with none of the incentives.

[Virginiá]

http://wpri.com/2018/03/02/recreational-marijuana-legalization-takes-a-blow-with-commission-recommendation-delay/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much the right idea:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But this one annoys me a lot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uhmm, hellllooo, legalization isn't new anymore. We've already seen the impact in numerous states. It's fine. This is the kind of argument I'd expect to see pre-2010. Here's my thought on this: If your argument for delaying, in 2018, is public safety, then it's fair to assume that you really don't want to legalize at all and you're just kind of throwing out a generic argument that's been used for years.

Seriously, I'd really like to know what exactly they are doing in this commission. Are they curing cancer? What takes around a year and a half to 'study,' when numerous states have already done it and seen a ton of tax revenue and no overly negative effects on society? What exactly takes over a year to 'study' with all this real-world trial & error data available at their fingertips? This isn't rocket science.

-

Cannabis is truly one of the best examples of why every state should have an accessible Colorado/Washington-style initiative process. Every where full legalization has passed has been by initiative because lawmakers are either too brainwashed by generations of anti-cannabis propaganda or too afraid of non-existent negative political consequences to go through with it. When are they going to realize that this is no longer a losing issue in most states? I mean, the least they could do is cook up a legislatively-referred amendment/statute and let the voters vote on it. That is one way to shift responsibility and still get something done.

[Virginiá]

Kind of curious if this was done to try and help Heitkamp. North Dakota seems like a somewhat random choice otherwise.

[Virginiá]

So what are the chances that Illinois legalizes marijuana? Apparently it is part of JB's agenda. And I don't mean half-legalization like Vermont, but full legalization with a market that provides tax revenue? This seems like a no-brainer for IL, but lawmakers in most states so far haven't seemed to accept that there is little-to-no political risk anymore and that legalization is basically inevitable.

[Virginiá]

So what are the chances that Illinois legalizes marijuana? Apparently it is part of JB's agenda. And I don't mean half-legalization like Vermont, but full legalization with a market that provides tax revenue? This seems like a no-brainer for IL, but lawmakers in most states so far haven't seemed to accept that there is little-to-no political risk anymore and that legalization is basically inevitable.

Same goes with Virginia, Minnesota, Connecticut or Pennsylvania. All are liberal to liberal leaning states.

Honestly, at least for now, all of these except maybe Connecticut do not seem to be viable due to Republican control of one or both legislative chambers. It's hard enough to get Democrats on board, and Democratic voters support legalization in much higher numbers than Republicans. Virginia might be possible once Democrats flip the legislature, but I feel like they need a bigger majority than what seems possible in 2019. Need to have a MoE for the inevitable defections of lawmakers who are either too scared of making what they still perceive to be a politically-risky vote and/or are still under the spell of the war on drugs.

Illinois seems like a better bet due to their fiscal situation and the fact that they now have a unified Democratic govt with super-majorities in the legislature (and Governor who explicitly supports legalization)

[Virginiá]

I assumed Mike Madigan, since he's really calling the shots in the legislature. And now that he is once again armed with a super majority, he has some wiggle room with regards to the whims of the executive.

They would have to be stupid to reject legalization though. No one is going to punish them for it, and the state really needs the money, so there are only upsides to this. With that, I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Virginiá]

NJ got cold feet, it seems.

Next year, perhaps?

They can't seem to understand that voters are not going to punish them come election time for legalization. It's like decades of prohibition have left them with cannabis PTSD or something.

Also, shame on this moron for his 1980s-level thinking:

Opposition to the bill came from a number of fronts. Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex) opposed it on the grounds legalization would unleash a wave of vice on inner city, predominantly minority communities. Madden, a former State Police superintendent, remained opposed over concerns relating to public safety and law enforcement, two legislative sources told POLITICO.

No need to take anyone's word for it, they can just look at the 10 other states that have legalized, and for bonus points, the dozen+ more that have decriminalized. There are no gd crime waves. What is with Essex lawmakers tanking good bills? This is not the first time that region's Rep(s) have done this.

[Virginiá]

At this point I'd be fine with a ballot vote. This is getting ridiculous.

For an issue that constantly claims large majorities of public support yet fails to unite lawmakers, that is an ideal compromise solution. But it will probably never happen for the same reason lawmakers frequently try to meddle with initiatives after they pass: Many of them see themselves as the only true gatekeepers of the law. They know better than the simpletons they represent, and the people merely serve as an undesirable yet necessary obstacle in obtaining power.

[Virginiá]

Illinois Senate passes bill legalizing recreational marijuana use

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/446155-illinois-senate-passes-bill-legalizing-recreational-marijuana-use

The Illinois Senate on Tuesday passed legislation that would legalize recreational use of marijuana.

The state chamber passed the measure in a 38-17 vote on Wednesday. The bill now heads to the state House for consideration.

Under the measure, also called the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, the state would legalize the “use of cannabis" for "persons 21 years of age or older and should be taxed in a manner similar to alcohol.”

The bill would allow “legitimate, taxpaying business people” to conduct sales of cannabis and that “selling, distributing, or transferring cannabis to minors and other persons under 21 years of age” would remain illegal.

Similar to how the law applies to alcohol, people would also be legally required under the new measure to “show proof of age before purchasing cannabis” and would be prohibited from driving under the influence of the cannabis.

Not 100% on it but I think part of the compromise was that only people with a medical marijuana card can grow their own at home.

[Virginiá]

According to Ballotpedia: Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have citizen initiatives in circulation for Marijuana Legalization....

The only viable state there seems to be Arizona, given that it only requires a simple majority to succeed. The other states I'm not so sure about. Also New Jersey doesn't have an initiative process afaik, so they may be referring to a possible amendment referred to the people by the legislature, which would be the smart, reasonable thing to do if the lawmakers are too spineless or incompetent to enact reform themselves.