I'll just leave this here....

[Kai]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

Depending on which philosophical position you take... that is how this government was originally set up.

As for implementation, it depends on the State.

In some cases, law enforcement has simply been told that marijuana use is the lowest crime to enforce. IE, arrest the jaywalker before you arrest the J-smoker.

Seems like a good position. And then if you only smoke in private, and only keep small amounts, then you'd probably never get bothered about it. Which makes sense. We don't look highly on public drunkenness either.

[East Coast Hustle]

Youth use is linked to family norms.  

Like watching old dad crack a beer.  

Yep.  Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.  

But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.

I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.  

I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.

So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk.  That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine.  I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences.  The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too.  And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.  

There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.

Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.

Remember:  Anecdotes = Evidence.

But only from the side of the argument that should have science to draw from. Anecdotal evidence from the side of the argument where scientific study is stifled by the government is, of course, not even worth considering.

Actually, anecdotes are never evidence.  

No, they're perfectly valid as long as you're ignoring science in favor of them.

[AFK]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

Depending on which philosophical position you take... that is how this government was originally set up.

As for implementation, it depends on the State.

In some cases, law enforcement has simply been told that marijuana use is the lowest crime to enforce. IE, arrest the jaywalker before you arrest the J-smoker.

Seems like a good position. And then if you only smoke in private, and only keep small amounts, then you'd probably never get bothered about it. Which makes sense. We don't look highly on public drunkenness either.

It's decriminalized here. So basically you get a ticket if you get caught.

Which you probably won't because you'll be busy wondering why the pizza delivery guy hasn't arrived 5 minutes after you called.

ETA: This doesn't really do anything for usage by minors, unless it is legalized and restricted to adults.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

Maybe they could take those resources and go after rapists and shit.

Just a thought.

[AFK]

Youth use is linked to family norms.  

Like watching old dad crack a beer.  

Yep.  Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.  

Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer.  (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)

And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.

RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire

but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.

If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes.  If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.  

OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.

I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid.  

[Kai]

In anecdotal evidence, I think it would be more healthy for me to eat a small dose of cannabis every day than start drinking at noon and stop drinking when I fall asleep. But then, that's just anecdote.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

[East Coast Hustle]

Youth use is linked to family norms. 

Like watching old dad crack a beer.   

Yep.  Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present. 

Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer.  (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)

And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.

RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire

but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.

If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes.  If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system. 

OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.

I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid. 

Actually, you've said before that they knew it was illegal when they did it and should have to live with the consequences of their actions, but I'll accept your seeming change of heart.

[AFK]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.

THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts

[Kai]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

Seems like the decriminalization is causing more problems for use by minors than legalization with age restriction would. In the former, there's little control over who can and cannot purchase or use. In the latter, there's significant control.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because the Federal Government has refused to allow Medical Marijuana to go through that process.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Yep.  And we can't have a drug out there that people can grow for themselves.

Think of the poor folks at Bayer.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Uh... so there aren't studies for the potential medical benefits of smoking the ganja?