Questions Re: Wa/Co vs Federal govt in regards to marijuana legalization

[Poll_Blind]

I did just a little cursory searching and it appears that the Controlled Substances Act is what the Federal government is technically enforcing.

First, is this correct? Is there anything else that's driving this?

Second, what is the path of least resistance in order to change the law in such a way as to allow Co/Wa to go forward with their legalization of Marijuana without being targeted by the Feds? Make some amendment to the CSA leaving marijuana's legality entirely the domain of the states? Is there a smaller move which would achieve the same thing?

Thoughts? I'm really interested in what the "path" is now.

Thanks!

PB

[jberryhill]

1. I'd like to see a piece of legislation that did this

If some states don't want to legalize, that's fine. There are still areas of the country where alcohol isn't sold, and a wide variety of restrictions in others.

1. Propose a uniform state regulation model (with optional elements) which, if followed and enforced to certain benchmarks, would put the state in control of MJ law enforcement for that state; and default to the status quo in states which don't adopt it.

2. Permit interstate transport between states which have adopted the uniform state regulation model.

3. States failing to meet regulation benchmarks default back to the status quo.

One of the background problems with "federal legalization" are that the US is signed onto international treaties on the subject, which may need to be re-visited and re-negotiated.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. I just posted this opinion in another thread but

In WA there were recently 23 collective gardens that were told to move, not shut down, but move because they were too close to a school or public park. I know of at least one of these collectives that has in fact reopened in another location, probably more I'm sure but 1 I personally know of. There was another case in my own city where there was a raid and a patient had more plants than he was legally permitted to have. He was allowed to keep the plants that were legally his. They took the rest. The DEA was instructed by Obma not harrass people and collectives that are within state law. We will have to see how it goes, but it will be interesting to see if they leave people and businesses alone who are indeed operating within state law.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

5. I'm more concerned about Big Ag. and Pharma

than the Federal government. Many in WA. were torn for this reason and didn't feel the language protected
us from their powerful influence in taking over the industry and taking away our rights to grow.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. I agree

I-502 says no growing at home. You have to purchase from a regulated and taxed busniness. There are lots of things wrong with this bill. I voted no on it. My daughter is turning 18 and she along with medical marijuana patients are the most at risk with this law. I'm very concerned for my daughter and for patients I know. I just hope the wrong things can be hammered out and changed.

[bluedigger]

6. As much as anything it is a practical matter of capability.

The Federal Government does not have the resources to pursue otherwise law abiding citizens. They will go after tax cheats and anybody they suspect of interstate trafficking, but they can't arrest, try, and jail every user, grower, and retailer without the state's help. They don't have enough cops, lawyers, judges, and prisons on their own.

[AnnaLee]

3. Decriminalization/legalization of drugs needs to be discussed sanely in this country.

I'm personally in favor of legalizing some like marijuana with strict driving laws.

Drugs addictions like heroine might be better handled under a doctor's care with a prescription.

Drugs like speed I have a problem with. I don't think any doctor would feed a speed habit.

Well, it's a start unless it just becomes a federal vs. states rights issue. Then no one is doing anything to lead.

[bluedigger]

4. It needs to be treated like alcohol and tobacco.

From your link:

Placing a drug or other substance in a certain Schedule or removing it from a certain Schedule is primarily based on 21 USC §§ 801, 801a, 802, 811, 812, 813 and 814. Every schedule otherwise requires finding and specifying the "potential for abuse" before a substance can be placed in that schedule.[16] The specific classification of any given drug or other substance is usually a source of controversy, as is the purpose and effectiveness of the entire regulatory scheme.
"The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6) [17] Some have argued that this is an important exemption, since alcohol and tobacco are the two most widely used drugs in the United States.[18][19] More significantly the exclusion of alcohol includes wine which is sacramentally used by many major religious denominations in the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

So it really takes Congress, the DEA, and the IRS to cooperate. And somebody to lead them.

[Ganja Ninja]

8. For right now it looks like the two states will not ..

be enforcing federal law and they will not be able to tax pot since it is still technically not legal.

So I'm guessing that growing and selling can be done without state interference. Small scale and personal use growers should go for it and not have to worry as long as they aren't too conspicuous.

[uncle ray]

9. they will be able to collect taxes.

they have been collecting quite a bit of taxes from MMJ already. no doubt, a major factor in why CO voted yes on 64.