Recreational Cannabis

[Deepak]

So it looks like ballot question 4, in Massachusetts, and Prop 64, in California, are both leading in the polls with about a month to go. If both pass, do you think this could signal the beginning of change at the federal level?

http://www1.wne.edu/news/2016/10/z-BallotQuestions_Tables100516.pdf

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakla...ions-end-is-no-sure-thing/Content?oid=4994077

Arizona, Maine, and Nevada are also voting on it this election.

 

[bleubird]

It will two years in November since Alaska voted to legalize pot.Even as a light smoker,I voted against the bill.I could see that would create a huge bureaucratic mess,and I was right.Each city and borough has had to set up a branch to deal with the sale of pot.We just voted to tax it like alcohol,8%.Point is be sure what you are voting on.I think a move to just remove it from class I to class III at the Fed level would be the way to go.

 

[Deepak]

It will two years in November since Alaska voted to legalize pot.Even as a light smoker,I voted against the bill.I could see that would create a huge bureaucratic mess,and I was right.Each city and borough has had to set up a branch to deal with the sale of pot.We just voted to tax it like alcohol,8%.Point is be sure what you are voting on.I think a move to just remove it from class I to class III at the Fed level would be the way to go.

I'm not sure of the other states, but in MA at least there would be a central authority (12 member IIRC) who would be responsible for writing the statewide regulation, with the State Treasurer having final oversight of their regulations. Smoking would not be allowed in public, personal cultivation would be allowed statewide, but each town could vote to not allow retail sales by a simple majority. Considering MA is a Commonwealth the last part is pretty standard, but there wouldn't be any local administration of rules and regulations beyond that. So it would be both regulated, and taxed like alcohol is in MA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We won't fix it on the federal level until the GOP is dead and buried.

 

[ZiprHead]

We won't fix it on the federal level until the GOP is dead and buried.

Nope, bot sides are on it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/11/dea-marijuana-remains-illegal-under-federal-law/88550804/

 

[untermensche]

Big Pharma is against it.

It cuts into their profits from anxiety drugs, depression drugs, pain drugs, and sleeping drugs.

This is big money.

This is serious.

Nothing these huge corporations play around with. For them it means billions.

 

[Elixir]

Big Pharma is against it.

It cuts into their profits from anxiety drugs, depression drugs, pain drugs, and sleeping drugs.

This is big money.

This is serious.

Nothing these huge corporations play around with. For them it means billions.

That's a factor. I voted for recreational pot in CO, because it was expensive and/or crappy on the black market. Now they let you grow three plants, which I did two years ago. Considering the yield, I may never have to do so again.

 

[Axulus]

Big Pharma is against it.

It cuts into their profits from anxiety drugs, depression drugs, pain drugs, and sleeping drugs.

This is big money.

This is serious.

Nothing these huge corporations play around with. For them it means billions.

And yet there is almost no money being contributed to the oppositions coffers, take CA prop 64, for example:

Total campaign cash
as of October 2, 2016:
Support: $16,970,725.67
Opposition: $2,026,501.16

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016)

None of the opposition funds appear to be from Pharma either.

 

[untermensche]

None of the opposition funds appear to be from Pharma either.

What just happened?

The Congress just decided to keep cannabis as Schedule I.

Schedule I means no known medical use.

Total insanity on this issue at the Federal level.

Part of it is about the use of the "Drug War" as an excuse to interfere into other nations.

But if Pharma money is not visible that doesn't mean it isn't there.

This is big money.

Marijuana is a much safer alternative to many prescription drugs. Especially pain drugs.

 

[Jarhyn]

And yet there is almost no money being contributed to the oppositions coffers, take CA prop 64, for example:

Total campaign cash
as of October 2, 2016:
Support: $16,970,725.67
Opposition: $2,026,501.16

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016)

None of the opposition funds appear to be from Pharma either.

Because pharma doesn't need to, or want to expose interests so blatantly or expensively. In such an environment, big pharma gets to hide behind candidates who align with their goals of slowing legalization, rather than directly opposing measures in states where they have no hope of winning.

Think about it from the perspective of pharma: you can either spend a bunch of money, multiplied by the number of states with ballot measures, to attempt to defeat a campaign which has wide support by those voting, or you can spend a little bit of money on a few campaigns in states where there aren't ballot measures available, or on representatives who will be in office for years, and the best part is that you only have to invest occasionally, since incumbents are hard to unseat. On top of it, you never have to publicly disclose your interest, unlike in campaigns against ballot initiatives.

Let's say that pharma were to invest 20 million into California. That 20 million represents a hundred 200k campaign contributions, or many more lesser contributions. Such contributions buy many more officials, ones with clout and respect, to protect their interests on a much broader field rather than a single state.

On top of all of that, you ALSO get politicians who are going to listen to other agendas of your company, deregulation, regulatory capture, creating or improving barriers to entry for competition, the list goes on.

 

[Deepak]

The pharma discussion seems incidental, since both MA and CA already have medical marijuana on the books. If anything I'd think there would be, and have observed, more pushback from alcohol manufacturers and distributors.

 

[Jarhyn]

The pharma discussion seems incidental, since both MA and CA already have medical marijuana on the books. If anything I'd think there would be, and have observed, more pushback from alcohol manufacturers and distributors.

At any stage of this argument, for any interested opposition to legalization, the opposition is going to buy representatives, not participate in ballot initiative campaigns.

It is more valuable to buy a representative that will listen to your lobby day in and day out than fight against the popular votes of individual states on a single issue, especially when it has broad popular support.

Even if it was liquor and tobacco lobbies rather than pharma, the only lobbies that would spend money on the Californian proposition are the local Californian lobbies, not national or international groups. You can see that such a strategy is effective by looking at the fact that representative bodies are, across the nation, in conflict with the widespread feelings of the electorate.

If legalization advocates brought the fight to the representatives with lobbying, you can be damn sure that pharma, liquor, and tobacco lobbies would outspend them because they CAN; that's why it's so important to keep winning ballot initiatives, as those are the only fights here that can be won, at least until we've won enough that it forces the issue.

 

[Crowcause]

I haven't found percentages of contributions broken down to groups against legalization, but have seen indications that the Police Unions, Prison Guard Unions, and Private Prison Corporations are spending more than big pharma, liquor, and tobacco.

 

[Jarhyn]

I haven't found percentages of contributions broken down to groups against legalization, but have seen indications that the Police Unions, Prison Guard Unions, and Private Prison Corporations are spending more than big pharma, liquor, and tobacco.

It is certainly true in Minnesota that the legislature has been influenced unduly by the police union. We're looking at another few years of having the most restrictive medical cannabis law on the books because that's as far as the police would budge: hash and concentrates are hard to get here, so the police still can arrest anyone who has any kind of plant matter found on them. I can only hope that our legislature manages to, at some point, open a referendum, seeing as how that can't be vetoed.

 

[Deepak]

I haven't found percentages of contributions broken down to groups against legalization, but have seen indications that the Police Unions, Prison Guard Unions, and Private Prison Corporations are spending more than big pharma, liquor, and tobacco.

Ballotpedia is a good resource to look up this info.

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Marijuana_Legalization,_Question_4_(2016)