I'm going to do my best to respond to posts in the order read:
1) TTINCO correctly notes that cannabis is legal to possess in Denver, though still illegal under CO state law and federal law.
2) Websites for two initiatives
NEVADA: http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/
COLORADO: http://safercolorado.org/
3) SPORTSAVANT asks:
does this actually mean pot could be legal on November 8th in those states?
SH: Yes, if passed, marijuana possession would no longer be a criminal offense under state law (per the terms in each respective state)
4) SAVANT asks further: Is this a citizen vote or a legislative vote? (paraphrased)
SH: In both NV and CO it is a ballot initiative voted on by citizens and which pass if receiving over 50% of votes.
<!-- / message -->
1) TTINCO correctly notes that cannabis is legal to possess in Denver, though still illegal under CO state law and federal law.
2) Websites for two initiatives
NEVADA: http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/
COLORADO: http://safercolorado.org/
3) SPORTSAVANT asks:
does this actually mean pot could be legal on November 8th in those states?
SH: Yes, if passed, marijuana possession would no longer be a criminal offense under state law (per the terms in each respective state)
4) SAVANT asks further: Is this a citizen vote or a legislative vote? (paraphrased)
SH: In both NV and CO it is a ballot initiative voted on by citizens and which pass if receiving over 50% of votes.
<!-- / message -->
5) VARIOUS posts dealt with the "odds" and current polling data.
Neither state shows passage to be iminent, thus the likely reasonable odds posted at BETCRIS.
Denver's initiative passed with 56% of the vote last year. Nevada had a fairly similar initiative to Question 7 in 2004, but it was for 3 oz instead of just one. It received a bit over 39% of the vote.
6) JOHNNYB asks:
Legalized?? Or just decriminalized? Two very different things.
SH: Legalized. No criminal or civil penalties for possession of 1oz or less by adults 21 and older. In Nevada, mandates for the state to establish a legal, regulated system for commercial distribution.
7) DOUGJ muses: Tourists may be afraid to bring smoke on the plane, so I think it is a non factor, really. I'm sure it won't be legal to smoke a J and drive ?
SH: As noted in previous reference, a legal system of commercial distribution would be set up. Carrying it on a plane would remain illegal under federal law since commercial air flights depart and arrive on federal property.
<!-- / message -->
Neither state shows passage to be iminent, thus the likely reasonable odds posted at BETCRIS.
Denver's initiative passed with 56% of the vote last year. Nevada had a fairly similar initiative to Question 7 in 2004, but it was for 3 oz instead of just one. It received a bit over 39% of the vote.
6) JOHNNYB asks:
Legalized?? Or just decriminalized? Two very different things.
SH: Legalized. No criminal or civil penalties for possession of 1oz or less by adults 21 and older. In Nevada, mandates for the state to establish a legal, regulated system for commercial distribution.
7) DOUGJ muses: Tourists may be afraid to bring smoke on the plane, so I think it is a non factor, really. I'm sure it won't be legal to smoke a J and drive ?
SH: As noted in previous reference, a legal system of commercial distribution would be set up. Carrying it on a plane would remain illegal under federal law since commercial air flights depart and arrive on federal property.
<!-- / message -->
8) IVYCONIVER submits: The only thing that could keep this from going through is the high number of religious conservatives out there.
SH: The two primary obstacles to ending marijuana prohibtion are
a) The marijuana prohibition industry. This would include, but not be limited to police agencies which receive state and federal monies for enforcing marijuana prohibition; the criminal court system which processes almost 4000 marijuana possession cases DAILY in the USA; the ancillary criminal probation system; the urine-testing industry (now well over a Billion dollars per year annually looking primarily for evidence of marijuana use); the for-profit 'drug treatment' industry which relies on the criminal justice system to coerce tens of thousands of Americans per month through their doors.
and to a lesser degree, but very powerful financially
b) The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries which view home grown cannabis as a very real threat to their bottom line.
<!-- / message -->
SH: The two primary obstacles to ending marijuana prohibtion are
a) The marijuana prohibition industry. This would include, but not be limited to police agencies which receive state and federal monies for enforcing marijuana prohibition; the criminal court system which processes almost 4000 marijuana possession cases DAILY in the USA; the ancillary criminal probation system; the urine-testing industry (now well over a Billion dollars per year annually looking primarily for evidence of marijuana use); the for-profit 'drug treatment' industry which relies on the criminal justice system to coerce tens of thousands of Americans per month through their doors.
and to a lesser degree, but very powerful financially
b) The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries which view home grown cannabis as a very real threat to their bottom line.
<!-- / message -->
THEVIETCHAMP purports: I did a presentation in college on the Nevada governor trying to legalize marijuana back in the day (about 4 or 5 years ago)...The governor's main point was: Legalize it, Regulate it, Tax it....
SH: No offense please, but I believe this is an utter fiction (the part about the governor).
I am happy however to be corrected with any info you can provide.
I have been very active in reforming public drug policies since 1999 and am unaware of any state governors that have endorsed the legalization of marijuana save for Minnesota's Jesse Ventura and New Mexico's Gary Johnson. Friendly guess on my part is that you're thinking of Mr. Johnson who from 2000-2004 was very active in promoting the ending of all drug Prohibition.
SH: No offense please, but I believe this is an utter fiction (the part about the governor).
I am happy however to be corrected with any info you can provide.
I have been very active in reforming public drug policies since 1999 and am unaware of any state governors that have endorsed the legalization of marijuana save for Minnesota's Jesse Ventura and New Mexico's Gary Johnson. Friendly guess on my part is that you're thinking of Mr. Johnson who from 2000-2004 was very active in promoting the ending of all drug Prohibition.
9) XPANDA submits: And legalising marijuana is hardly a license to sell it. The language of the law will probably allow for a certain amount for personal use, but will still outlaw trafficking.
SH: Friendly correction per the notes I posted above about Nevada where passage of Question 7 will mandate the state establishing a legal, regulated system for commercial distribution. Sales in CO will remain illegal even if Amendment 44 passes.
====
10) DOUGJ suggests:
Federal law would supercede state law, IMO.
SH: Not so, if either or both initiatives are passed.
Quibbling mainly with your semantics. Cannabis would indeed remain illegal under federal law, but that law would not "supercede" state laws. Prosecution under state law would be non-existent while the feds would retain the right to arrest and prosecute.
Given that there's less than 10,000 DEA officers worldwide, that's not likely to be a problem for most 1oz cannabis possessors. The DEA has already stated publicly that they would not seek to prosecute anyone in Colorado if Amendment 44 were to pass.
===
11) DOUG posted: tax stamps were once tried !
SH: Actually, the federal tax stamps created in 1937 were never used even once. They remain a collectors item today among stamp collectors. A recent issue of their leading collectors mag showed a full set of the 1937 stamps to sell for over $12,000
====
<!-- / message -->12) NIMUE says: The nevada initiative would setup the the licensing of outlets to sell cannabis (up to an ounce) to those 21 and over. Each ounce would have a $45 tax added to it.
SH: The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is a fiction as far as I know (no offense to you personally...I'm guessing you're honestly sharing secondhand info). Question 7 in Nevada mandates the establishment of a taxed and regulated system for commercial sales, but I am unaware of any specifics being declared at this time.
======
13) DOUG wonders: Where do the outlets get the weed from ? Is it gov't weed ? How much would it sell for in total ?
SH: All to be answered after passage (In Nevada). If answer to second question was Yes, it would be state grown, not federal.
SH: Friendly correction per the notes I posted above about Nevada where passage of Question 7 will mandate the state establishing a legal, regulated system for commercial distribution. Sales in CO will remain illegal even if Amendment 44 passes.
====
10) DOUGJ suggests:
Federal law would supercede state law, IMO.
SH: Not so, if either or both initiatives are passed.
Quibbling mainly with your semantics. Cannabis would indeed remain illegal under federal law, but that law would not "supercede" state laws. Prosecution under state law would be non-existent while the feds would retain the right to arrest and prosecute.
Given that there's less than 10,000 DEA officers worldwide, that's not likely to be a problem for most 1oz cannabis possessors. The DEA has already stated publicly that they would not seek to prosecute anyone in Colorado if Amendment 44 were to pass.
===
11) DOUG posted: tax stamps were once tried !
SH: Actually, the federal tax stamps created in 1937 were never used even once. They remain a collectors item today among stamp collectors. A recent issue of their leading collectors mag showed a full set of the 1937 stamps to sell for over $12,000
====
<!-- / message -->12) NIMUE says: The nevada initiative would setup the the licensing of outlets to sell cannabis (up to an ounce) to those 21 and over. Each ounce would have a $45 tax added to it.
SH: The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is a fiction as far as I know (no offense to you personally...I'm guessing you're honestly sharing secondhand info). Question 7 in Nevada mandates the establishment of a taxed and regulated system for commercial sales, but I am unaware of any specifics being declared at this time.
======
13) DOUG wonders: Where do the outlets get the weed from ? Is it gov't weed ? How much would it sell for in total ?
SH: All to be answered after passage (In Nevada). If answer to second question was Yes, it would be state grown, not federal.
14) SOCCERBOB submits: Even if the question passes, it will never take effect because the whole thing will be thrown out at the federal level. The reason nevada law enforcement agencies haven't campaigned too hard against the question is because it could pass 99% to 1% but as one poster already mentioned is that federal law is already in place on this matter. So even is Question 7 passes here, it will be tossed out so the whole vote is meaningless.
SH: Asked and answered above. Passage of a law at the state level cannot be tossed out by the feds unless it can be demonstrated to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.
Based on the legal passage and continuing legality of medical marijuana laws in 12 states to date, no such argument could be made by the feds.
This does not mean the feds cannot arrest and prosecute under federal law. What it does mean is that upon passage, NV and CO state law enforcement could no longer bring criminal charges against those adult who possess marijuana in the designated quantities.
SH: Asked and answered above. Passage of a law at the state level cannot be tossed out by the feds unless it can be demonstrated to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.
Based on the legal passage and continuing legality of medical marijuana laws in 12 states to date, no such argument could be made by the feds.
This does not mean the feds cannot arrest and prosecute under federal law. What it does mean is that upon passage, NV and CO state law enforcement could no longer bring criminal charges against those adult who possess marijuana in the designated quantities.
Yea, in part B, the corporations are the reason that they would never be passed in federal legislation, they'd lobby it down in a second. I'm suprised they even let this get on the state ballot. However the corporations and police chiefs don't have anywhere near as many votes as the conservative religious public. Shit, I bet half of the street cops WANT it legalized so that they don't have to mess around with so many petty posession charges.barman said:
IVYC: Yea, in part B, the corporations are the reason that they would never be passed in federal legislation, they'd lobby it down in a second. I'm suprised they even let this get on the state ballot.
SH: They didn't have a say on whether it was on the ballot. Both NV and CO permit initiatives to be placed on the ballot if a sufficient number of registered voters sign the requisite petition.
IC: However the corporations and police chiefs don't have anywhere near as many votes as the conservative religious public. Shit, I bet half of the street cops WANT it legalized so that they don't have to mess around with so many petty posession charges.
SH: My secondary job is with the org shown in my Giant Gold avatar (smile) - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://leap.cc
Our experience at LEAP since inception just over four years ago is that 80% of police agree with legalizing and regulating production and distribution for ALL drugs, including of course marijuana. Drug prohibition increases crime and violence in the community and much of the violence is directed at police. Legal drug dealers, otoh, pose no danger of violence to either civilians or police.
<!-- / message -->
SH: They didn't have a say on whether it was on the ballot. Both NV and CO permit initiatives to be placed on the ballot if a sufficient number of registered voters sign the requisite petition.
IC: However the corporations and police chiefs don't have anywhere near as many votes as the conservative religious public. Shit, I bet half of the street cops WANT it legalized so that they don't have to mess around with so many petty posession charges.
SH: My secondary job is with the org shown in my Giant Gold avatar (smile) - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://leap.cc
Our experience at LEAP since inception just over four years ago is that 80% of police agree with legalizing and regulating production and distribution for ALL drugs, including of course marijuana. Drug prohibition increases crime and violence in the community and much of the violence is directed at police. Legal drug dealers, otoh, pose no danger of violence to either civilians or police.
<!-- / message -->
ivyconniver said:
They got more than enough signatures to get it on the ballot. I don't have any #'s, but I'm pretty sure the feds are pumping in quite a bit of coin to help defeat it. Some head of "public safety" damn near got publicly lynched for announcing he was supporting it-I know he technically oversees the cops-so that didn't go over too well.
I want to say he was Denver's-give me a few minutes to dig.
I love Google..
Councilor takes heat for pot-issue support
<!--subtitle--><!--byline-->By Felisa Cardona and George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writers
<!--date-->Article Last Updated:10/16/2006 11:36:37 PM MDT
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript> var requestedWidth = 0; </SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript> document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; if(requestedWidth > 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } </SCRIPT>
A Denver City councilman who chairs the safety committee has angered police by saying he approves of a statewide initiative that would legalize small amounts of marijuana.
In a newsletter dated Fall 2006 that explains his views on each of the upcoming ballot initiatives, At-Large Councilman Doug Linkhart wrote that he will "probably vote for" Amendment 44 - which would legalize possession of an ounce of marijuana for those 21 and older.
"There is little evidence that marijuana use by adults has a negative impact on the broader community - and certainly not as many negative effects as alcohol," Linkhart wrote. "Let's spend our law enforcement dollars on more important matters."
Several Denver police and city officials said they were astounded by Linkhart's comments.
"We have an elected city official in charge of the Public Safety Committee condoning the use of an illegal substance, and the Police Department's role is to control the use of illegal substances," Denver Police Protective Association president Mike Mosco said. "We would hope that the chair of the Public Safety Committee would have a better understanding of what the police department does."
And Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Linkhart's view defies "common sense."
"What kind of example is this for your children?" he said.
Councilman Charlie Brown said he was disappointed. "It's shocking," he said. "Speaking as chairman of the Economic Development Committee, I can tell you that that is not the kind of business I want to attract to Denver."
Asked about the comments, Linkhart said the research he has done supports his decision. "I don't see the evil there," he said.
He noted the support a similar, but local, initiative won in Denver. "I don't think I'm alone on this," he said. "As far as I can tell, I represent the public."
Linkhart's newsletter included basic information on 16 state and local ballot questions. His recommendations for voting on the various initiatives ranged from "absolutely" on the domestic-partnership referendum to "no" on several.
For the marijuana amendment, his recommendation was "your choice."
A statement on the letter said it was paid for by Linkhart's political campaign - not taxpayers.
Proponents of Amendment 44 were pleased by Linkhart's comments.
"He is now the only councilman who is officially representing the people who elected him into office," said Mason Tvert, campaign director of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation. "Other elected officials could learn a thing or two on how we spend these city resources."
But Robert McGuire, a campaign coordinator for Save Our Society from Drugs, said: "It's reprehensible that someone in that position of authority would advocate for passing something like this." Staff writer Felisa Cardona can be reached at 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4503793
Councilor takes heat for pot-issue support
<!--subtitle--><!--byline-->By Felisa Cardona and George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writers
<!--date-->Article Last Updated:10/16/2006 11:36:37 PM MDT
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript> var requestedWidth = 0; </SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript> document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; if(requestedWidth > 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } </SCRIPT>
A Denver City councilman who chairs the safety committee has angered police by saying he approves of a statewide initiative that would legalize small amounts of marijuana.
In a newsletter dated Fall 2006 that explains his views on each of the upcoming ballot initiatives, At-Large Councilman Doug Linkhart wrote that he will "probably vote for" Amendment 44 - which would legalize possession of an ounce of marijuana for those 21 and older.
"There is little evidence that marijuana use by adults has a negative impact on the broader community - and certainly not as many negative effects as alcohol," Linkhart wrote. "Let's spend our law enforcement dollars on more important matters."
Several Denver police and city officials said they were astounded by Linkhart's comments.
"We have an elected city official in charge of the Public Safety Committee condoning the use of an illegal substance, and the Police Department's role is to control the use of illegal substances," Denver Police Protective Association president Mike Mosco said. "We would hope that the chair of the Public Safety Committee would have a better understanding of what the police department does."
And Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Linkhart's view defies "common sense."
"What kind of example is this for your children?" he said.
Councilman Charlie Brown said he was disappointed. "It's shocking," he said. "Speaking as chairman of the Economic Development Committee, I can tell you that that is not the kind of business I want to attract to Denver."
Asked about the comments, Linkhart said the research he has done supports his decision. "I don't see the evil there," he said.
He noted the support a similar, but local, initiative won in Denver. "I don't think I'm alone on this," he said. "As far as I can tell, I represent the public."
Linkhart's newsletter included basic information on 16 state and local ballot questions. His recommendations for voting on the various initiatives ranged from "absolutely" on the domestic-partnership referendum to "no" on several.
For the marijuana amendment, his recommendation was "your choice."
A statement on the letter said it was paid for by Linkhart's political campaign - not taxpayers.
Proponents of Amendment 44 were pleased by Linkhart's comments.
"He is now the only councilman who is officially representing the people who elected him into office," said Mason Tvert, campaign director of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation. "Other elected officials could learn a thing or two on how we spend these city resources."
But Robert McGuire, a campaign coordinator for Save Our Society from Drugs, said: "It's reprehensible that someone in that position of authority would advocate for passing something like this." Staff writer Felisa Cardona can be reached at 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4503793
Corporations have a lot of pull, government hates change and is essentially for sale on every level. Even if this passes, I don't think it'd ever see the light of day with so many appeals courts etc.
I agree though, I think most drugs should be legalized, the drinking age should be lowered to 16, and government should take that drug prevention money and spend it on building a nationally funded and congruent public transit system (thus strongly reducing the need for automobiles, and DUI's). But all of that is a topic for another thread... The bottom line is, if drugs were ever legalized, the country would be in near anarchy for an entire generation until younger kids growing up with the new rules would see them as normal.
I agree though, I think most drugs should be legalized, the drinking age should be lowered to 16, and government should take that drug prevention money and spend it on building a nationally funded and congruent public transit system (thus strongly reducing the need for automobiles, and DUI's). But all of that is a topic for another thread... The bottom line is, if drugs were ever legalized, the country would be in near anarchy for an entire generation until younger kids growing up with the new rules would see them as normal.
While concurring with most of the tenor of IVYC's posts so far, I have to say in response to:
IVYC: The bottom line is, if drugs were ever legalized, the country would be in near anarchy for an entire generation until younger kids growing up with the new rules would see them as normal.
SH: Speculative nonsense.
99.9% of drugs are already legal and those which are not are available with only a modest amount of hassle for those who want them.
There's frankly not much demand for any of the illicit drugs other than cannabis. That's not likely to change were production and commercial distribution to be legalized.
Also I'll offer a friendly disagreement with lowering the legal age for possession of alcohol to 16.
Alcohol is way too powerful and potentially addictive for most 18 year olds to handle, much less 16 year olds.
====
I do endorse expansion of public transportation systems nationwide to help reduce the need for individuals driving automobiles.<!-- / message -->
IVYC: The bottom line is, if drugs were ever legalized, the country would be in near anarchy for an entire generation until younger kids growing up with the new rules would see them as normal.
SH: Speculative nonsense.
99.9% of drugs are already legal and those which are not are available with only a modest amount of hassle for those who want them.
There's frankly not much demand for any of the illicit drugs other than cannabis. That's not likely to change were production and commercial distribution to be legalized.
Also I'll offer a friendly disagreement with lowering the legal age for possession of alcohol to 16.
Alcohol is way too powerful and potentially addictive for most 18 year olds to handle, much less 16 year olds.
====
I do endorse expansion of public transportation systems nationwide to help reduce the need for individuals driving automobiles.<!-- / message -->
To be honest, I thought the same thing about the drinking age -- until I went to Europe, met a bunch of kids there, and saw how society functioned on the most basic levels. College there is totally different, it's actually for learning. Here it's party central, the first time kids are away from their parents, and they go nuts. Age for age, the maturity curve is just a little faster there, and I think a lot of it is due to being exposed to "adult" things like drinking and sex at a younger age.
Obviously these are just generalizations based upon a small sample, but it afforded me a much different viewpoint than before I traveled a bit.
Maybe I went a little far with "anarchy", but I do think there would be a big surge in the use of weed and whatever else was legalized for the first few years before it was considered commonplace
Obviously these are just generalizations based upon a small sample, but it afforded me a much different viewpoint than before I traveled a bit.
Maybe I went a little far with "anarchy", but I do think there would be a big surge in the use of weed and whatever else was legalized for the first few years before it was considered commonplace
Thanks for the further explanation of your reasoning.
Europeans certainly seem to have a better sense of how to raise youth, but until more societal attitudes in the U.S. were to gravitate towards their often common sense approaches, I'm happy to leave the legal alcohol age at 21.
I concur that legalization of drugs would likely result in a modest upsurge in marijuana use but I think it would be accompanied by an equal reduction in alcohol use which is a nice net gain for community health.
The other illicit drugs might see a short term rise, but frankly, they're not in much demand for a good reason. Quite simply, they're really not all that great to actively use.
I'm a recovered cocaine abuser (only a couple grams ingested past 11 years) and have the firm belief that the best way to discourage cocaine use is for someone to have virtually unlimited access.
Give someone unlimited access to cocaine and they'll quit within a couple months max IMHO. It's just way too debilitating for active use and even "occasional use" is challenging because the physiological reward inspires compulsive redosing.
The other illicit drugs aren't much wanted.
I mean, who's really waiting to try heroin or street meth but is only held back by Prohibition?
Thanks for all the feedback in this thread and if you know voters in either NV or CO, please ask them to support Question 7 and Amendment 44.
Europeans certainly seem to have a better sense of how to raise youth, but until more societal attitudes in the U.S. were to gravitate towards their often common sense approaches, I'm happy to leave the legal alcohol age at 21.
I concur that legalization of drugs would likely result in a modest upsurge in marijuana use but I think it would be accompanied by an equal reduction in alcohol use which is a nice net gain for community health.
The other illicit drugs might see a short term rise, but frankly, they're not in much demand for a good reason. Quite simply, they're really not all that great to actively use.
I'm a recovered cocaine abuser (only a couple grams ingested past 11 years) and have the firm belief that the best way to discourage cocaine use is for someone to have virtually unlimited access.
Give someone unlimited access to cocaine and they'll quit within a couple months max IMHO. It's just way too debilitating for active use and even "occasional use" is challenging because the physiological reward inspires compulsive redosing.
The other illicit drugs aren't much wanted.
I mean, who's really waiting to try heroin or street meth but is only held back by Prohibition?
Thanks for all the feedback in this thread and if you know voters in either NV or CO, please ask them to support Question 7 and Amendment 44.
Notes:
There are numerous "head shops" already in Las Vegas, while just about every "smoke shop" offers marijuana paraphernalia...meaning, smoking pot in Las Vegas/Nevada is a socially accepted reality, small amount possession penalty is a misdemeanor, while Law Enforcement is passive.
However, if such an initative were to pass, there would be some conflicts with laws already on the Nevada books regarding penalties associated with "controlled substances."
Additionally, a debate would surely ensue regarding the effectiveness of current driving impairment testing with regard to cannabis remaining in one's system week's following ingestion.
Legalization proponents contend that since prohibition laws are ineffective in eradication, law enforcement should be focused upon more significant crimes, cannabis is socially prevalent/acceptable, while being less harmful than it's legal counterpart alcohol...it becomes reasonable for cannabis to be regulated and taxed in an attempt to control and redirect revenues from the black-market into state coffers.
There are numerous "head shops" already in Las Vegas, while just about every "smoke shop" offers marijuana paraphernalia...meaning, smoking pot in Las Vegas/Nevada is a socially accepted reality, small amount possession penalty is a misdemeanor, while Law Enforcement is passive.
However, if such an initative were to pass, there would be some conflicts with laws already on the Nevada books regarding penalties associated with "controlled substances."
Additionally, a debate would surely ensue regarding the effectiveness of current driving impairment testing with regard to cannabis remaining in one's system week's following ingestion.
Legalization proponents contend that since prohibition laws are ineffective in eradication, law enforcement should be focused upon more significant crimes, cannabis is socially prevalent/acceptable, while being less harmful than it's legal counterpart alcohol...it becomes reasonable for cannabis to be regulated and taxed in an attempt to control and redirect revenues from the black-market into state coffers.
