Splitboard.com Forums

proud to be a Coloradan. Props to you Washingtonians !

Congrats Colorado and Washington!

Fellow Oregonista's

I've always liked SW Washington......

Be high, be free fellas. I expect an indepth TR.!

Colorado first in the nation to legalize it. Good look WA state!

Congrats!

So, can somebody explain this to me as an outsider, what does this mean?
Can you go around and smoke pot in the streets now?
There was something about a federal law as well but I didn't get that either.

Mr. Banana,

These are both state laws. Federal law in the U.S. still prohibits marijuana use.

Both laws allow cultivation, sale and recreational use of marijuana. It will be regulated similarly to alcohol; I imagine its use in public will be similarly restricted (you can drink and now smoke marijuana in some but not other places). Both laws are more liberal than the Netherlands' marijuana laws.

The question now is how the feds will respond. The supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution establishes in absolute terms that federal law trumps state law. Obama and Holder can choose to ignore or enforce federal law with political consequences; which consequences they choose will be pivotal.

I think this is a critical step toward federal decriminalization and regulation... Good news not just for these states, but ultimately also the U.S. and Mexico.

You read about Colorado's law here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64_%282012%29

So if the state refuses to enforce federal law, what incentive does the federal government to enforce the law? Can the feds require state agencies to enforce federal law? While the feds could come in and shut down large grow ops and retail stores, I doubt they will be coming in and enforcing these laws on the consumers. I'm pretty clueless on the relationship between federal and state law.

It will be interesting to see the economic effects of legalization. The 21st amendment had a positive effect on the economy after the market crash of 1929, it seems that this might have a similar effect of creating jobs and increasing tax revenues.

It is already known that the Fed's don't have the resources to go after the shops that will spring up on the ground level. You are pretty dead on. They may try to make a show out of busting a few of the operations, but in the end, not much they'll be able to do without the state's help. This is going to be a legal show down.

I also see Washington and Colorado becoming fast friends in the legal circuits over this one.

It says in our local paper today that there is going to be a 15% tax on it and the first $40 million of profit each year goes to the public school funds. Thats the best use of pot $ ever.

Shredgnar,

The first threshold question is IF the feds will choose to enforce federal law. I'm not sure they will; alienating voters in those states--especially Colorado, which is a western blue-dog stronghold for the Obama administration (see election results)--will come at a tremendous political cost. Would the administration really turn around and screw their friends like that?

Maybe. Holder has in the past stated the he'd vigorously enforce federal law in the face of state legalization.

If they do, I think they'd go after the state law in court and businesses on the ground, but not the state agencies. The softest (and most effective) approach would be to challenge the constitutionality of those laws in federal court. That makes it a matter of law, and avoids the spectacle of raiding federal cops in black combat costumes. (That would be unpopular.) Harder approaches would be like what we saw in California--feds raiding businesses; harder yet would be agents going after citizen smokers. I could be wrong, but I don't foresee the feds going after state agencies for failing to enforce federal law because, as a general matter, failure to act is more difficult to fight in court than an unlawful action.

As to the economics, I think that, between these two states, annual public revenue generation could top $100 million. This is important for three reasons. First, it creates a means by which states can ignore and replace any funds that the feds withhold in protest (federal funding is another possible means of federal retribution). Second, it creates a massive new revenue source that states, through resulting services (like schools), will quickly come to depend on. And third, when you upscale that revenue nationally, you begin to get a picture of the massive economic benefits (billions) that could come from federal regulation and decriminalization--this becomes a compelling case for congress to change federal law.

There's also this which is really interesting and important: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexico-study-us-legalization-cuts-cartel-profits-17612383#.UJpqlWfV58F

Exactly.

Taylor, all good points. I can see the feds withholding funding for key programs being an effective tool that they could use. That's how they forced most states to drop the DUI threshold to .08 so they know that it is effective. This fight will take place mainly in the courtroom and I'd be surprised to see Fed agents raiding many pot shops or grow ops.

The Governor is not a big fan of this bill passing, so don't expect much help from his office in this matter.

As someone who was pretty big in the game, and went through the wringer on state and federal level, the feds aren't going to fuck with anyone as long as they play by the book. On a personal level... nothing to even think about, no way they have way bigger fish to fry than to send marshalls and FBI to every potheads house in WA and CO.

On a large scale they won't do anything, unless you run a shady business, and are cheating on your taxes etc. This is what happened in CA with the medical community. As long as you run a legit business you'll be fine, if you are just a shady drug dealer with a store front scamming...expect to probably have issues. That being said even the dispensaries that were shut down in LA didn't suffer large criminal consequences, it was more like a slap on the wrist and being told to stop.