I'm just curious to see what everybody thinks about legal pot. I'm not a fan. I tried it once "back in the day", I wasnt impressed. I did vote for it mostly cause it may generate some tax revenue and maybe decrease the load on the police. But I dont want to constantly smell the stuff everywhere.

One thing I've never seen mentioned, if you own a pot shop what do you do with the money you get from drug sales? There are some very serious federal laws (Money Laundering) that have been around for years that prohibit banks from accepting drug money for deposit and also prohibit banks from facilitating drug sales.

According to these laws if your customer gives you a check you cant deposit it in a bank, same with cash.. you cant deposit that in the bank either. You cant have a card swipe terminal sponsored by a bank, that would be facilitating drug sales. These are "know your customer" laws and the bank cant use ignorance as an excuse.

As a practical matter, bankers are in the community, they will know who has a pot shop and where the $ came from.

Pot is a schedule 1 drug same as heroin, cocaine etc. Federal law takes precedence over any state laws. A bank would be insane to accept drug money. The monetary penalties can run into the millions. UBS was fined 700 million a few months ago for money laundering.

It will be interesting to see what the feds do. I dont see how they can ignore a wholesale violation of federal laws. Previously it was just medical pot, and somewhat limited.

One aspect of this which I would like to see a legal response on deal with the commerce clause of the constitution. If WA says you can grow, sell, and use regulated pot within WA then aren't the Feds supposed to butt out? Can't transport it across state lines. Maybe that is is where the money issue comes in; pot growers/distrubutors could only use banks who kept the funds in-state.

I thought that growing your own or purchasing it from a non-state licensed dealer was actually against this law? Maybe I am wrong, I don't smoke the stuff so didn't actually pay attention to all the details (only what the news said).

It's illegal to grow your own up here.

You'll be able to grow your own next year... For a small fee to the state of course...

I think legal pot is long overdue. Then again, I favor legalization of all currently illicit drugs. The war on drugs is a social and economic failure of massive proportion. Might as well try to outlaw possession, sale, and use of water. The drug laws are that stupid in terms of social benefits weighed against the massive social and economic costs.

Legal pot doesn't effect me personally. I voted for it, naturally, because I think it's fundamentally wrong for the gov't., as an arm of a segment of society, to be telling other people what they can or cannot do.

As far as the discrepancy between the state and federal laws, when enough states tell the fed to FO, the feds will eventually back off, just as it did to end Prohibition. Remember, government follows; it doesn't lead. Of course meanwhile the fed may make a big mess and screw things up royally that will have to be unraveled after the gov't. adjusts to reality.

I'm pretty open minded but legalized meth/heroin/cocaine/oxy -- I just can't see that being better. Do you know of any good examples (anywhere in the world) where this worked out okay?

+1 gazillion.....with everything.

IR,

No, I don't know of any examples. My position is based purely on pragmatism, lacking even an ounce of emotional content. The War on Drugs has been a monumental failure by any yardstick one cares to measure with. It has two primary beneficiaries, those in the business of manufacturing, processing, distributing, and selling drugs, and on the other side of the street, drug law enforcement agencies and parts of the criminal justice system and corrections that deal with drug offenses.

The correlation between drug use and the legality of drugs is assumed and not based on any empirical evidence. The choice to use drugs is seldom influenced by whether they are legal or not. Recent surveys regarding WA state's legalization of pot indicate only a slight prospective increase of use, likely a "curiousity" factor that will fade in a short time. The number one pathway to heroin use is completely unaffected by heroin's illegal status. Do you really think the choices your kids will make about drug use will be influenced by the legal status of drugs or by being educated about drugs and drug use?

Drug education is fairly well established as more effective than drug enforcement. Since there are few facts, only informed inference suggests that a combination of drug education and drug treatment/rehab will be both cheaper and more effective than drug enforcement has been. That's impossible to know without trying it, but we know for a fact that declaring drugs illegal and investing close to $200 billion a year in drug enforcement leaves us with a national record of drug use, drug addiction, drug incarceration, and a legacy of people dead from involvement in the drug trade. By what logical yardstick could legalization, education, and treatment produce a worse national social and economic outcome?

Sg

Shall we use underage drinking as an example? or smoking? or unprotected sex? or cleaning up their rooms.......or anything else?
C'mon Salmo.......we aren't talking about your angels....it's the other ones that just might do their own thing.

Portugal hasn't legalized drugs but de criminalized them 11 years ago. Seems it has worked out much better than our insane approach.

http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

Only if it's a drug free company.

Sure Slab, use any example. Underage kids will still drink or smoke, which are already illegal. See how well making forbidden fruits illegal works? Hint: it doesn't! Smart kids will weight the potential risks against the potential (perceived) benefits, just like they always have. Not so smart kids will, well, they won't be so smart. Just like they always have. I agree that a few will try some things because they are legal that they wouldn't have if they were illegal.

Truth be known, I only know one peer who didn't touch drugs or alcohol because they were illegal, and a few who didn't during sports seasons because of coach's rules against drinking and smoking (we didn't have drugs at our school quite yet.). Declaring drugs or booze illegal has only slightly greater than zero effect on detering use among the young.

My angels weren't the only smart kids. The majority of their peer group was too. And just like always, there are a few who made really piss poor decisions, the ones who drank and drove, the one who tried tagging (graffiti art) on a wall next to a PSE transformer and got electrocuted, but not a single drug addict as far as they know, and they've been out of high school 13 and 16 years, respectively.

Sg

Well, we have kids that have been almost always on the good side of the line, one that has been just short of becoming a statistic in the "things to not do" category, and a couple of atypical "testers".

And I'll say this about all that.....the one who has always been the blood pressure raiser gave no heed to the "law", and even though he has advanced by leaps and bounds, there is still that belligerent defiance of legalities. No amount of prompting logical thought resounds with him. He is the youngest, and that goes with the territory to some degree.....but GET A FKN CLUE, KID.........LOL

It's not the "smart" kids that are the problem......never has been/never will be.........

But the mark left by them others....is why one group wants laws. But you knew that.

I voted for it. Now all the College students can relax and mellow out after school. And also for you guy's out there fishing.

Mf

And there ya' have it Slab. The smart kids will be smart, and some kids will make bad choices. It isn't the law that makes a difference when it comes to choosing to use pot or other drugs. Now that it appears we agree, why do you want to waste the energy, time, money, and trouble having drugs be illegal. You're succumbing to an emotional feel-good position instead of using logic. Now come on, join the smart side. There's always room for one more.

Way ta' go Hank. That dammmmn Obummer administration, just one more example of its ineptitude. Thanks for sharing. Probably all those leftover Bush appointees at DOJ no doubt. . .

Sg

It appears to me, Salmo, that what the "law" does is provide a means to hold some accountability for the lawless who would otherwise continue mayhem without consequence.

The effectiveness of jail time can be a deterrent after one expends enough of their life behind bars, I suppose. Monetary punishment is selective in its impact.....hurting the poor much more than the rich, but time behind bars provides an equal (or nearly so) learning experience.

You can't really believe that we don't need police to counteract survival of the fittest.

Voted for it, so did the wife. She's a probation officer and drug & alcohol counselor for juveniles. Alcohol is far and above more of an issue on her case load than MJ. I have no issues with MJ. Inhaled as a yute, once or twice. Never caused an issue for me.

As to the issues with money laundering and a challenge to federal law, I would agree with the OP that there are a bunch of issues because of this.

This is how the laws on prohibition were changed. States demanding their rights and the realization of a failed policy.

Two states down. 30+ states to go. Either a milquetoast reaction, or a gross overreaction, will likely be the catalyst that leads other states voting in their own initiatives.

milquetoast?



creative, for sure

I got a lot of good words.