
Colorado measure legalizing marijuana passes - neverm0re
http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote?source=most_viewed
======
scythe
The most important part of this to me is that it generates a huge amount of
precedent for the Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Guatemala that
are considering legalization. The United States has used its global influence
to push drug prohibition in other countries -- see for instance
[http://www.cannabis-
med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannab...](http://www.cannabis-
med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=218#2) \-- and with
these victories -- even if they prove to be merely nominal -- the people of
Latin America can see that prohibition is crumbling.

There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or
sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the
drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some
serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition
have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the
real victory here.

~~~
InclinedPlane
It certainly seems like this is the tipping point. Overall national support
for decriminalization is at just over 50%. Several of the most populous
states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or
outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of
the west coast is pro legalization.

I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the
open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society
crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical
marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books
or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization."_

There has actually been a lot of backward momentum in recent years, especially
in the West. Californians rejected the full-decriminalization proposition a
few years ago. The state is also cracking down on dispensaries, and/or
allowing more and more DEA raids against dispensaries and state-sanctioned
growers.

On the other side of the pond, even Amsterdam is starting to crack down on
cannabis shops and decriminalization statutes.

By all accounts, the measure in CO was an abberration from recent trends.
Maybe it will be a tipping point back in the pro-legalization direction. But
it represents a shift in the prevailing tides of the last few years.

~~~
accoinstereo
Simply not true.

Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010. The proposition to
_legalize_ the drug failed to pass. But I would hardly call this "backward
momentum." It's not like there was a ton of incentive for Joe Pot to rally
behind the move--cheap prescriptions, cheap dispensaries, and cheap penalties
is keeping him plenty happy and stocked.

There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam. And I would hardly call what
happened in the _Netherlands_ "cracking down." Many cities were weary of
tourists entering the country simply to get high. So those cities combatted
the "anti-social" tourist by requiring marijuana IDs at their coffeeshops.
Citizens are free to use, but unless other countries adopt legalization laws
in the Euro Zone some Dutch cities feel they must enforce these policies.

Will be interesting to see how Colorado/Washington deal with this, as they
will likely encounter the same issue. If I lived in a border city like
Vancouver, I'd be prepping for an influx in 2014.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010."_

Specifically, the possession of less than 1 oz of marijuana has been
decriminalized. Possession of a larger quantity, or sale or intent to
distribute, has not been.

 _"The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass."_

Prop 19 was not a full legalization; it was more like a major
decriminalization. Possession of up to 1 oz would have been legalized, but
many of the "gotcha" side-penalties (employers retain rights to drug screen
and consider cannabis in the system a firable offense; legal penalties for
possession above 1 oz; etc.) would have remained in place. I think it's fair
to say that, had it passed, Prop 19 would have been a really big step toward
legalization. But let's not split hairs.

 _"There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam."_

Not only has the sale of marijuana to tourists been outlawed, but "coffee
shops" are being forced to reorganize as membership-only clubs, with caps on
membership at around 1,000-1,500 per shop. There is also a growing movement,
with vocal sponsors in the Dutch parliament, to ban "coffee shops" altogether.

 _"And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down."_

Again, hair spliting over semantics here. The fact is that the Netherlands is
moving in a more conservative direction w/r/t marijuana policy. However you
want to define "cracking down," the present directionality is from X to Y,
where X is a more liberal policy, and Y is a more restrictive policy.

I see your point that policy in the Netherlands is not necessarily germane to
policy in the US. I think that's a fair one.

------
moistgorilla
As someone that doesn't smoke weed and never wants to. I'm happy that this got
passed. I want Cartels to go out of business.

~~~
MartinCron
You, me, almost every economist, and a huge group of law enforcement
professionals.

------
pinchyfingers
Alcohol prohibition in the United States underwent a similar process. New York
legalized alcohol, while it was still prohibited by federal law. Eventually,
enough states had stopped arresting and prosecuting people for alcohol that it
was not feasible to continue federal prohibition.

Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast
majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local
authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the
prohibition will come to an end.

~~~
bdcravens
What was the federal-state-local funding model like then? I know most
municipalities continue to depend on federal funding, and I can see the US
government using this (I recall a similar thing a few years ago around legal
drinking ages)

~~~
aggie
The feds would need to justify a denial in funding based on some public health
grounds ("to promote the general welfare" [1]). If this was brought to the
courts, it could actually be a good opportunity to critically examine effects
of legalization in a relatively rational, authoritative venue. The DEA's
absurd Schedule I classification would need to be justified if it were to be
imposed.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole>

------
trotsky
In unrelated news, doctors announced unprecedented drops in the number of
20-40 year olds suffering from migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome,
depression and insomnia.

------
llambda
Interestingly enough, Washington State's similar initiative, Initiative 502,
passed as well tonight. It would seem momentum is growing around legalization.
How the federal government via the DEA and DOJ ultimately handle these two
victories for legalization proponents may be telling in regard to how close a
national concensus is.

------
detst
I'm actually optimistic about civil liberties in this country. Didn't see that
coming. Two states legalized marijuana and possibly four more states have
approved gay marriage (btw, I rarely smoke and I'm not gay).

Let's keep this going.

~~~
Nursie
Gotta wonder, now that Obama is a second term president and doesn't have to
think about re-election, whether we could see some of this stuff start to
happen at the federal level...

~~~
Karunamon
I'd hope so, but the other side is going to be just as obstructionist and
useless as ever.

~~~
cobrausn
Nevermind that Obama has never expressed any interest in marijuana
legalization and has even gone against his own promises in regards to
prosecution. But feel free to keep projecting 'progressive values' onto him
that aren't there.

~~~
Karunamon
>Nevermind that Obama has never expressed any interest in marijuana
legalization

And up until very recently he never expressed any interest in marriage
equality either. Your point?

~~~
cobrausn
There's a difference between 'not expressing interest' and 'actively pursuing
the opposing agenda' that I hope is apparent.

2012 Democratic Platform:

"We must help state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement work
together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which
are blights on our communities. We have increased funding for the Byrne
Justice Assistance Grant Program over the last four years, and we will
continue to expand the use of drug courts. We support the rights of victims to
be respected, heard, and compensated."

RTFM.

------
46Bit
Provided this actually happens (ie: it doesn't get sabotaged by the DEA), I
expect Colorado's tourist numbers and college applications will compete for
the largest increase next year.

Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.

~~~
mahmud
Not a smoker either, but discussed living in CO or WA is we go back to the
U.S. I just want to live among open minded people.

------
DanBC
Prohibition is clearly stupid and has caused very great harm. Other people
have mentioned the death and destruction in Mexico as one example. I am
strongly pro legalisation.

But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't
know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how
many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by
cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self-
medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the
ability to do better science.)

Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that
legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this
is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.

~~~
patrickgzill
The purpose of prohibition was to destroy local, independant breweries and
distillers, so that large conglomerates would be able to dominate the very
lucrative alcohol industry once it was re-legalized.

~~~
andyakb
This has absolutely no basis in fact.

~~~
patrickgzill
Look at who the owners of breweries and distilleries were pre-Prohibition, and
after. Before - small businesses, essentially micro-brewers, spread out across
the country. After - Anheuser-Busch and a few others. QED.

~~~
abduhl
Similarly, the purpose of World War 2 was to destroy other industrialized
nations so that the United States could dominate the very lucrative world
economy once peace was reattained.

Just look at who the world powers were pre-World War, and after.

~~~
patrickgzill
Not the only purpose to be sure, however it was explicitly mentioned as a
rationale for staying out of the European theater completely.

The idea was to allow Germany and Russia to slug it out, completely exhausting
both countries.

See for example the views of Charles Lindbergh (search for Russia) :
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html>

America's strength is why the USD became the reserve currency of the world.
Note that the Bretton Woods conference was held in 1944, before the war ended:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system>

------
Osmium
As an outsider, I'm not sure I understand what this means. Can someone explain
how this will work in practice? in the sense that this doesn't over-rule
federal laws, and presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still
operate in Colorado?

~~~
Alex3917
"Can someone explain how this will work in practice?"

Read the law.

"presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?"

The feds have said that they aren't going to target individuals who follow
state law. As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is
currently left up to each local DA. There are some rough guidelines the feds
have put out saying that if you follow certain rules (as a grower or
dispensary owner) then you won't be arrested, but it's up to each DA as to
whether or not to honor those guidelines.

The federal government has already accepted that marijuana is going to become
legal, but they're trying to make it happen in an orderly way. Insiders
generally predict federal legalization (or at least rescheduling) in 3-5
years. That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest
it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political,
economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned.

~~~
Kadin
> As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently
> left up to each local DA.

This isn't correct to my knowledge; as an issue of Federal law, that would be
the purview of the US Attorney assigned to the region, not the local DA. They
get their orders from the US Attorney General.

A local DA could decline to prosecute under state law, but the US Attorney
could still pursue federal charges -- this happens fairly regularly (just in
general, not even just with regard to drugs or cannabis specifically).

~~~
Alex3917
"as an issue of Federal law, that would be the purview of the US Attorney
assigned to the region"

That's what I meant by local.

"They get their orders from the US Attorney General."

Not in this case. The US Attorney General is letting them each do whatever
they want as they see fit. That's why there are lots of raids in some parts of
California, and almost none in others.

------
tubbzor
Living in Colorado, I voted yes on Amendment 64. This was mostly because I
think the hemp and 'recreation' industries will pull in a lot of tax revenue
(of which, the first $40 million will be put directly into a public schools
fund for the state), as well as potential job growth.

I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding
cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case
despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be
considered 'dispensaries'?

It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp
based industry get started up at all.

~~~
Kadin
The city-level restrictions seem fair. Without some sort of "escape valve" to
let places that are predominately opposed opt out, I suspect you'd get a lot
of backlash and you might see a reversal. Better to let some cities lead and
others sit the first round out ... although they'll probably be losing some
valuable first-mover tourist dollar advantages in doing so.

~~~
njharman
Not at the same "level", but. Many things should not have "local" opt outs.
Such as opting out of providing abortions, health care, desgregation. Access
to drugs is one of these things. One job of government is to protect the
rights of the minority against the majority. (and no I don't believe in
"negative" rights such as we have the right not to have mary jane sold in our
town.)

OTOH, I can accept this as a necessary and temporary compromise to get the
decriminalization ball rolling.

------
stinky613
This is all well and good, but at this point there's no guarantee that the
federal government won't slap it down. My limited understanding of the law
suggests there are two avenues for the federal government to do so:

I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and
U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all
state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal
law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]

Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana
laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling,
or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities,
are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement
action, including potential prosecution."[2]

II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to
regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]

A quick example of how the ICC could be applied: If a farmer in Colorado buys
fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of
growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may
be subject to the ICC.

I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see
what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause>

[2][http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-
to-m...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana)

[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause>

~~~
bsimpson
The Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago. They said that Congress can
regulate home-grown marijuana (even though they are only constitutionally
allowed to regulate interstate commerce) because the presence of homegrown
marijuana affects supply/demand in the interstate market for it:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich>

Baffling logic, but I wouldn't be optimistic for the federal authorities to be
too foregiving here.

~~~
Zak
They ruled the same thing about wheat:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn>

It seems obvious to me that the authors of the interstate commerce clause
didn't intend it to grant the authority to regulate anything and everything
just because an interstate market for it exists, but the courts are generally
quite hesitant to invalidate Federal laws.

Practically speaking, most drug enforcement happens at the state level. This
means that individual users and small sellers in states that legalized
marijuana probably won't have many issues, but you won't see ABC Liquor and
Cannabis opening its doors any time soon.

------
dutchbrit
Good news! Let farmers grow it and people at home. Sell it, tax it, allow
people to buy it in a safe environment instead from dealers that try to get
people hooked on other crap. This makes weed less of a gateway drug and more a
greatway drug.

------
suby
At the time of posting, it also looks like Washington is going to pass their
marijuana ballot too.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-
legalizat...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization-
results_n_2074168.html)

------
signifiers
Didn't think I'd ever see a .gov page officially referencing: a) a ballot
initiative, b) marijuana and c) Cheetos & Goldfish, but here you go:
[http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagenam...](http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=GovHickenlooper%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251633686228&pagename=CBONWrapper)

------
at-fates-hands
I think they are plenty of good arguments for legalizing marijuana - however,
things like this tend to make me think twice about it:

"In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed
directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts
much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last
decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol
was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.”

[http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-
dri...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-
drivers-20110703)

~~~
learc83
>nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year

That number is meaningless unless we know what counts as "injuries".

Furthermore "drugged driving" is anytime someone is in an accident and blood
tests show evidence of Marijuana use, even in cases where the driver was no
longer impaired.

>Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not
involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.

How often were they testing for Marijuana after car accidents in 1999 compared
to 2009, and what level of impairment is the cutoff for a "primary cause."

That statistic is useless without knowing if an increased number of "drugged
driving" offenses was offset by a corresponding decreased number of alcohol
impaired offenses.

~~~
chimeracoder
If alcohol testing were like marijuana testing, almost _every_ accident would
be counted as a DUI.

Because of the underlying chemistry involved, most statistics involving
marijuana-related incidents vastly _overstate_ instances of drugged driving,
use, etc. This includes not just DUIs, but also numbers like the DAWN reports.

Unlike almost any other drug, marijuana stays detectable in the system for 2
weeks on a test (for urine tests, which are the most common - in general,
anywhere from 2 days to 3 months, depending on the type of test + usage
habits).

Since the _effects_ of the drug only last for ~2-4 hours, that means that
"testing positive" for marijuana is useless at indicating whether the person
is actually under the influence, or just happened to use the drug at some
point within the last two weeks.

Contrast to most drugs - alcohol, for example, can only be detected for about
as long as the person is impaired.

------
seanalltogether
Are there any other instances of this kind of issue to compare this against
and see how it's going to play out. I'm trying to think of other instances
where something was illegal at the federal level, and states have made that
legal?

~~~
sakri
worked well for portugal : [http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-
policy-decrimin...](http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-
decriminalization-works-2012-7)

~~~
icebraining
We haven't made it legal, just decriminalized consumption.

------
pioul
_The amendment will allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of
the drug at specially regulated retail stores._

I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments,
but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys
weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person?

And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even
corporations to get their hands on these records?

~~~
nlh
I'm guessing -- and this is purely a guess (ie I haven't read the law) -- that
the 1oz limit is likely per transaction / per visit. Just like when a
supermarket says "limit 5 per customer" for an item on sale. If you REALLY
want more you can go back later/tomorrow/etc.

This was likely put in the language of the law to emphasize that this is for
personal use and not for commercial distribution.

------
Inebas
I am having a hard time understanding the reasons for support here in HN so
please help me out. A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime
outside of the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it? Suppose that it
is a more powerful drug that is very hazardous to a person exist. Doesn't that
speaks to the same situation? Should we legalize that as well?

I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it
based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created
a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.

With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like
criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of
alcohol addiction, etc...

~~~
regularfry

        A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of 
        the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it?
    

I am struggling to find any potential answer to this which doesn't boil down
to "yes".

    
    
        I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize 
        it based on whether it is good for this country?
    

Why not both? The national harms done by prohibition are very, very real.

    
    
        I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.
    

Legalisation will cut off a major funding source for those "bad side effects."
It might not stop them completely, but it ought to make a dent.

~~~
Inebas
What I'm saying is that the same people who creates those violent crimes
selling marijuana is going to create violent crimes selling other more
dangerous drugs. Should we then legalize that as well so that those people
will stop making those drugs and focus on another more dangerous drug?

~~~
Nursie
1) Yes, we should carefully consider every aspect of prohibition and analyse
how we can set policy to bring levels of harm down to an absolute minimum. If
this includes decrim of everything, we shouldn't balk at it but follow best
available evidence.

This is not easy. For example, is it acceptable to decriminalise and prescribe
heroin for addicts if the results are (hypothetically): \- increase in the
number of heroin addicts by 50% due to easier availability \- decrease in 95%
of deaths due to heroin and heroin-related HIV due to clean needles, known
doses, no impurities etc \- eliminate 95% of the acquisitive crime by these
addicts as nobody steals for a fix any more

I would say yes. But it's a hard sell at the political level, particularly
when western society seems to regard addiction as a moral failure and a sin in
need of punishment. I find it particularly perverse that when you explain to
people that providing a fix and (hopefully) a slow, easy, managed detox
program for these people is not only more humane but likely to save insane
amounts of tax money AND cut violent crime, some folks are still against it
because 'they broke the law!'

2) If the popular and less harmful drugs (weed, E/X , probably a few others
like LSD) are legalised and made available then the available customer base
and cash for the criminal gangs shrinks massively. Nobody expects them to go
home to mommy and start an honest career but if you cut the cashflow, you cut
the ability of the gangs to function, and you cut the number of people coming
in because it's less attractive.

Surely you can't think that cutting off a lucrative revenue stream from the
cartels is a bad thing?

3) Drugs really aren't as dangerous as you've been told. Read a real book on
them sometime. I recommend 'Drugs: Without the hot air' by Professor David
Nutt, one of the UK's foremost scientists in this area.

~~~
ytNumbers
> Drugs really aren't as dangerous as you've been told.

I guess no one here watches the TV show "Intervention". Pity. That TV show is
a better education on the real impact of hardcore drugs than any book you
might read. This Colorado vote is a relatively minor issue, really. But, it
does indicate that we're heading down a slippery slope. Since those running
the meth clinics say that only one person in 50 can stay clean for a year,
there might come a day when half of society are hardcore drug addicts. But, we
will never face that kind of zombie apocalypse because the life expectancy for
a meth addict is only seven years from the moment they get hooked. Let the
down-voting commence!

~~~
Nursie
I'd also like to know how you think prohibition is helping these people.

~~~
Scramblejams
The connection you're looking for is probably that generally where prohibition
has been lifted, consumption has increased.

~~~
Nursie
Like in Portugal?

Where decriminalisation has been a harm-reducing success?

~~~
Scramblejams
Turn it down a notch.

------
doctoboggan
This is a pretty big deal. It will be interesting to see how the federal
government handles this.

~~~
SenorWilson
The same way they do now. They'll do a bust every couple of months to keep
their directors happy.

------
piokoch
I'am curious how health insurace companies will react. Would they charge more
from people who take marijuana? Would it be legal for them to investigate if
someone is cannabies smoker?

------
lsiebert
Legalization this is not. It's decriminalization under state law, but that
doesn't mean that federal criminal laws go away. The Supreme Court is content
to have both laws exist in force, IE, it didn't suggest in Gonzalez vs. Raich
that medical marijuana laws are illegal exercises by the state, merely that
they don't remove existing federal laws.

------
larrykubin
unfortunately it just failed in Oregon:

[http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_m...](http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_measure_80_legalization.html#incart_river_default)

~~~
Alex3917
This was inevitable. The Oregon law was based on the tomato model, which is
only 1 / 5th as popular as the tax and regulate like alcohol model:

[http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want-
ma...](http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want-marijuana-to-
be-legalized/)

If the law gets rewritten and makes it onto the ballot again in four years
then it will pass easily.

~~~
sliverstorm
Perfect evidence that you need to work step-by-step with this sort of social
change, rather than simply declaring, "I want it all, and I want it now".

------
HistoryInAction
Can't wait to see the impact analysis from <http://www.marijuanamajority.com/>

Perry Rosenstein++

------
armenarmen
...and im trying to profiteer <http://www.facebook.com/HerbTours>

~~~
olivier1664
Yep, there is some business opportunities here.

------
sigzero
I am sure the Feds are going to slap it down.

~~~
nkohari
The federal government has no jurisdiction. They technically don't have the
authority to make a substance illegal at the federal level anyway -- they get
away with it by levying taxes on banned substances that can't actually be
paid.

Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating
state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms,
libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama
administration needs, and he's already made it very clear that marijuana is
not high (ha) on his list of concerns.

~~~
starnixgod
The feds don't have the authority to criminalize a substance? News to me,
perhaps you should brush up on Supreme court decisions since the 1940's: Start
with Wickard v. Filburn then move on to Gonzales v. Raich

The expansive rulings on the Commerce Clause has opened up the ability of
congress to legislate just about anything, provided they can tie it loosely to
the act affecting commerce in some minuscule way.

~~~
nkohari
IANAL, and I'm not going to pretend (like yourself) that I can interpret
Supreme Court opinions by "brushing up" on them.

Could you point me to an instance in which the cases you cited were used as
precedence in support of federal jurisdiction over controlled substances
within state lines? Or did you just want me to be impressed that you can cite
Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause?

~~~
chimeracoder
On a separate note, the federal government prevents states from exercising
their constitutional right to lower the drinking age to 18, by blackmailing
them with the threat of losing highway funding. There's nothing stopping them
from doing that with marijuana.

~~~
18pfsmt
This was an amendment to the Colorado Constitution by the voters of the state.
The Colorado state legislators can't override this like they could a statutory
ballot measure.

------
black_kiwi
I wonder what the increase in tourism and population is going to look like

