Lessons Learned After 4 Years of Marijuana Legalization

www.learnaboutsam.org ^ | October 2016 | SAM-Smart Approaches to Marijuana

[zeestephen]

I scanned through the very long report.

My first thought - I wonder if the legal alcohol industry funds any of these studies?

It would not surprise me if alcohol consumption goes down where ever marijuana consumption goes up.

That was certainly true in my life.

After getting stoned on marijuana, my alcohol consumption usually went to zero.

On the other hand, my chocolate milk shake consumption usually doubled or tripled!

[Ken H]

National marijuana prohibition is dead. The decision is now at the state level, where the Constitution says it belongs.

[Hugin]

Higher rates of traffic deaths from driving while high

Bogus stat based on the number of people testing positive in autopsies. Since the high lasts only hours but traces stay in the blood for weeks that says nothing about whether they were high or not. It only shows that more people are smoking pot, not whether they were high at the time of death.

[T-Bone Texan]

You need to stop with your cogent, common sense comments!

They have no place on FR!

[Svartalfiar]

Meh. It’s a study from a group that’s mostly against marijuana. If you read through the actual report, they don’t causate any of their terrible terrible world-ending stuff to marijuana. There’s not much comparison to similar cities with similar laws (aside from marijuana). Obviously a state that legalizes something is going to have that something be more prevalent in the populace in general, including minors. Obviously more people will ‘fail’ the drug test, because the substance they’re testing for is legal. Maybe they should start overlooking marijuana positives, and only bother if something happens during work? My job doesn’t care if I drink or smoke on off hours, that’s my time. Why should marijuana be different, if it’s not affecting their productivity or work performance?

And the worst part is their point about how schools and education stuff hasn’t gotten the big funding boost they were supposed to. Well guess what - if you look on page 21, Education had a ~$20M shortfall below what was expected. But surprise! Pot revenue to the general fund was ~$20M POSITIVE. That’s not low pot tax dollars - that’s the state using those tax dollars differently than they were supposed to.

Marijuana involved in vehicle accidents, deaths, crimes - of course as it’s legalized, more people will have some of it in their system at any given point. (And even longer, considering thc can be present in your system for days or even weeks after you’ve last imbibed.) How many of those accidents were actually caused by someone who was high? Versus just had a quick toke beforehand? How many of those ‘positive’ tests were actually just old stuff from a day or two ago, and those people weren’t even high at the time?

This study looks at some numbers, but doesn’t actually study much and seems to be mostly just theoretical conjecture trying to show that marijuana finally being re-allowed is bad.

Also, the FedGov shouldn’t be involved in this anyway, so all those comments and whatnot about how it doesn’t matter what the states do, are wrong. Period.

[Steve Schulin]

Legalization advocates have long argued that the laws against marijuana use do not deter use or abuse of marijuana. The statistics in this new report seem to clearly contradict that argument, and the increased use of marijuana by children is something that I see as important to understand. Indeed, we adults have an obligation to understand it.

As to federal role in marijuana, I recall that we are signatories to a treaty, the Single Convention, which I recall pretty much requires the US to continue making the trade and use of marijuana illegal. Our lawless federal government has not adhered to that treaty, starting with doing nothing about states setting up medicinal marijuana regulatory frameworks.

Fellow FReeper Tom Hoefling is running for President this year. I’m his VP running mate. Votes for us will count in more than enough states to win the Electoral College, if enough folks vote for us. One of Tom’s top priorities is to help return our federal government to the limitations specified in the Constitution. I’ve asked him to please consider letting me have a role in this. I would push to include a review of our treaties, including the Single Convention, as part of his comprehensive vision. Please consider voting for Tom and urging your acquaintances to consider doing the same.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[Svartalfiar]

[the Single Convention] Our lawless federal government has not adhered to that treaty, starting with doing nothing about states setting up medicinal marijuana regulatory frameworks.

Irrelevant. Our lawless federal government doesn't have any power on that subject, so they can't make treaties about it that have any power in the US. If that's your argument, the fedgov could grant themselves unlimited powers simply by signing foreign treaties requiring them to do something they have no power over.

[Steve Schulin]

The Constitution says that treaties, properly ratified, are the supreme law of the land. What else in the Constitution do you insist we ignore?

[Steve Schulin]

You are, however, absolutely right about the prospect of abuse of treaty power. One of the many things I appreciate about America's Party is our platform plank calling for repeal of 17th Amendment. With Senators elected in the same way as House members, reserving the ratification of treaties to the Senate doesn't have a purpose anymore.

[Svartalfiar]

The Constitution says that treaties, properly ratified, are the supreme law of the land. What else in the Constitution do you insist we ignore?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

If the United States doesn't have the authority for something, they can't grant themselves the authority just by signing a treaty. Any treaty would have to be limited to areas the FedGov would have legal authority in in the first place. If it's not listed in section 8, then a treaty can't be made about it. It's not ignoring parts of the Constitution, it's reading the parts that the FedGov is allowed to even think about.

[Steve Schulin]

If the treaty-making authority was limited as you suggest, why would the language describing treaties (”... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States...”) be different than the language describing laws (”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...”). The presence of a semicolon [between (1) the part about the Constitution and laws and (2) the part about treaties] indicates a difference between these two parts of “the supreme Law of the Land”, as well.

[Svartalfiar]

If the treaty-making authority was limited as you suggest, why would the language describing treaties (”... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States...”) be different than the language describing laws (”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...”). The presence of a semicolon [between (1) the part about the Constitution and laws and (2) the part about treaties] indicates a difference between these two parts of “the supreme Law of the Land”, as well.

Yes, there is a difference. The Laws are made in persuance of the Constitution. Their purpose is to delineate and define how the government works under the Constitution, how the government is using the few powers it does have, and applying them to the populace. Treaties are made under the authority of the US. They aren't made domestically, they're done with a foreign power. They're a separate side branch, while the laws are a directly-under branch. And 'Supreme Law' simply means that it overrides State law when they are in conflict.

If we signed/ratified a treaty in the next few days that said the US is now a monarchy, would that be legally binding? No, because the United States doesn't have the power to do that without a Constitutional Amendment. Therefore they can't just pass a treaty that makes it so. They can ONLY pass treaties dealing with an enumerated power they have.