Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News Politics

Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC 588

Robotron23 writes: Coinciding with the midterm elections yesterday were state ballots proposing the legalization of cannabis. All three territories where full legalization was tabled approved the measure, joining Washington state and Colorado. The narrowest vote was that of Alaska at a roughly 52% to 48% margin. Washington D.C. meanwhile saw the vote strongly tipped in favor of legalization, at about 69% to 31% opposed. Oregon passed its measure by a vote of 55% to 45%. Buoyed by the news, advocates of legal cannabis are already contemplating the next round of state ballots in 2016.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC

Comments Filter:
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:25AM (#48317589) Homepage Journal
    I believe that even though it passed in DC...that congress can put the kibosh on this pretty quick?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:33AM (#48317667)

      It's still Federally illegal. Even in any state that it is "legal" it can still be prosecuted. It won't be under the current president, but that can change in 2 years.

      • by aitikin ( 909209 )

        It's still Federally illegal. Even in any state that it is "legal" it can still be prosecuted. It won't be under the current president, but that can change in 2 years.

        Mod parent up. Even if it is legal in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and DC, it's federally illegal. I would be surprised to see the DEA crackdown on it, but legally, they could. Obama has stated that this issue is not of major concern to him and will not be seeking prosecution.

        • by cogeek ( 2425448 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @11:11AM (#48318077)

          Obama has stated that this issue is not of major concern to him and will not be seeking prosecution.

          That's what he's stated, but not what he's done. They've raided several marijuana dispensaries and farms here in Colorado.

          How do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.

          • Obama has stated that this issue is not of major concern to him and will not be seeking prosecution.

            That's what he's stated, but not what he's done. They've raided several marijuana dispensaries and farms here in Colorado.

            How do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.

            To be fair, some of the places they've raided appear to have been selling, whether knowingly or not, fairly large quantities of pot to people who were then taking it to Kansas and Wyoming and reselling it, and interstate transport of illegal drugs is absolutely part of the Federal Government's job.
            However, it's not clear to me how sellers can tell where the stuff is going, and why should they be required to? They're selling what's legal here, and it's not really their business what the buyers do with it.
            Th

        • But the more states legalize, the greater pressure there is for the DEA to back off. Since the public is energized on the police-procedures issue right now, viral videos will bring us the justice that courts won't.

          After all, this election was largely about trimming federal power, which is why the Taliban lost on the issues. Last night Colorado expended reproductive rights and Arizona became the fifth state to pass Right To Try, giving terminal patients the right to buy medications that are in the FDA pipeli

      • by itsenrique ( 846636 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @11:03AM (#48317989)
        But one day, just like with the alcohol prohibition, there will probably be national reform. 23 states have medical, and 5 (i believe) have outright decriminalization. I think your point matters a lot more if you are thinking of investing in cannabis/starting a business than if you are just a consumer. What? The feds have enough resources to come into everyones home who smokes the stuff in states and charge them? I guess my point is: yes, its federally illegal. That doesn't mean these laws passing don't have large implications. The next president will probably be cautious about MJ like the current one because it is a hot button issue and legalization seems to be getting more steam every 2 years.
  • Wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ravenswood1000 ( 543817 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:26AM (#48317605)
    I never in my lifetime expected to see this. It's about time
    • Sorry, I'm not completely familiar with the US legislative system. Does this election mean it is the law now, or it is just the expression of voters that politicians now have to form into new laws?

      • Re: Wonderful (Score:5, Informative)

        by C0R1D4N ( 970153 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:34AM (#48317669)
        It means it is no longer a violation of state law, only federal. The federal government can still enforce the laws without using local resources but they don't really want to spark a fight between state governments and the federal.
        • Or as our friends on the right would say, "States Rights Beeeeotch!"
      • The US legal process is so unreasonably complicated.

        Every region not only has it's own laws, but its own constitution defining how laws are passed and structured.

        The simple, short version, is that in most states, legislatures can take things members don't want to be responsible for voting for, and put them on a ballot for the next election.

        Some states have really dumb rules, like California that requires all taxes to pass a popular vote, but not all spending, and you can imagine how that lead to a catastrop

        • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

          Lets not forget there are also states, like my own, that often have "non-binding" questions, where the question goes to the ballot but its really people are voting to "instruct the legislature to enact legislation..." meaning, the people spoke, but its still up to the legislature to write and pass a law, which they are really not actually required to do and there is no garauntee they will.

          That said I think unreasonably complicated is what it is not. If you remember that it is supposed to be a federation of

        • The US legal process is so unreasonably complicated.

          No more so than any other major industrialized country.

          Every region not only has it's own laws, but its own constitution defining how laws are passed and structured.

          Every state has a constitution because they are by definition sovereign over that region. It's in the name: United STATES of America. The constitutions of each state are required to be compatible with the federal constitution and if there is a conflict the federal constitution wins. Local governments do not have constitutions typically though there are some exceptions. It's actually pretty straightforward in concept though law making everywhere is a

          • No more so than any other major industrialized country.

            Definitely more than some other major industrialized countries.

            Some other constitutional nations actually standardize their processes for regional government too.

            Like 60% of US states have unconstitutional provisions in their constitutions. It's not a maximally healthy legal environment when that happens.

      • It depends on the state, as the process is slightly unique for each state, but basically the state laws are almost certainly going to change.
    • Welcome to the club.

      Sincerely, your neighbors who paved the way,
      Washington State and Colorado

      • by Tenebrousedge ( 1226584 ) <tenebrousedgeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @11:47AM (#48318417)

        No, actually, possession and manufacture (growing) of marijuana has been legal in Alaska since 1975. [wikipedia.org] I've grown myself, and even had the attention of the authorities called to the matter, which worked out favorably. I've also had friends have growing equipment confiscated by the police, and subsequently returned with an apology. Nota bene: the legal protections applied (almost) exclusively in one's house or primary residence.

        There are some cultural differences at work here; Alaskan marijuana was (semi-)legalized under a privacy clause, which mostly stems (ironically) from a far-right desire to be left the hell alone by everyone but especially the Government. Except in the form of pork barrel projects, which everyone knows are necessary in order to compensate for the state's underdeveloped "frontier" status.

        Generally speaking, while it was legalized in the sense that cops were not going to bother one for private use, public consumption was strongly discouraged. This was not the first time full legalization has been on the ballot in Alaska, there were similar ballot measures in 2000 and 2004. It's a complicated situation; Alaska is almost ludicrously conservative compared to the other states which have legalized.

        One must give credit where credit is due, I think it's significant that after years of effort and a long history of consumption in Alaska, this measure did not succeed until after Colorado and Washington. However, ultimately, I think that the most influential state in marijuana politics would be California: their medical marijuana dispensary system has paved the way for the de-demonization of cannabis. Now, the onus is on all of us to reverse the damage that the War on Drugs has caused, particularly in America's having pushed its drug laws on the entire rest of the world through the UN.

        A side note on that: I suspect that this last part will involve the US pushing its drug laws on the rest of the world once more, but it would be nice if there were some process by which the international community could come to sane decisions about these drugs.

        • Consider me more educated about Alaska, although I was aware of the goings on in California. Also, I hope folks realize I was just making a nonsensical, tongue-in-cheek comment just to indicate that Washington and Colorado have passed similar measures. I suppose I should have left out the "paved the way" part, because it was probably just a matter of getting their first more than anything else.

          BTW, I think conservatives are starting to come around on the drug war, albeit slowly. I think many people are s

  • America is a RINO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheNastyInThePasty ( 2382648 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:29AM (#48317617)

    Yesterday's election was a message to Washington that America wants conservatives to represent them! Also, they want legalized pot, increased minimum wage, the right to have an abortion, insurance-provided contraception, and required paid time off at work!

    Wait, what?

    • Just one of the many contradictions that happen when you have a democracy that's made up of politicians who are elected by the people after having been bought by corporations.

      • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

        Not really contradictions though. This is what you should expect when the majority of such a large country is broken up into two big tent parties. None of these things is actually contrary to the core princibles that drive people to choose one party or the other. These do tend to be hot button issues that many individuals care deeply about and might choose candidates based solely on.... and one party may cater to or not....but really none of them is so big in and of itself to be a contradiction for a person

    • by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:42AM (#48317753)

      No, yesterday's election message was "fuck Democrats", just as 2008's was "fuck Republicans". The system just doesn't really allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them", probably because the system was made by both of them.

      • by The Ickle Jones ( 3869681 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:49AM (#48317825)

        The system just doesn't really allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them"

        It does. It's just that voters are retarded.

        • If I had the mod points....

          +1 to this. I voted purely Green & Libertarian (aside from where there was no option for such choices and depending on the specific issues). Then I saw my state's election results and realized how pointless it was for those two parties to even exist.

          Has there ever even been someone voted to a major political office (i.e. Senator, House Representative, or Governor of a state) that wasn't R or D?

          I experienced the full brunt of voter stupidity when a relative of mine asked me who

          • by Khyber ( 864651 )

            "Has there ever even been someone voted to a major political office (i.e. Senator, House Representative, or Governor of a state) that wasn't R or D?"

            George Washington, John Tyler (Independents) John Adams (Federalist) William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Milard Fillmore (Whigs)

        • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @11:28AM (#48318243)

          The system just doesn't really allow a message of "fuck BOTH of them"

          It does. It's just that voters are retarded.

          And apathetic. There were only about 15 people at my polling place yesterday when I voted and I, at 51, was the youngest there. The rest were probably like my mother, voting Republican because they despise Obama and the Affordable Care Act, while enjoying their Medicare - which, ironically, I pay for - or their Tricare. Or, also like my mother, don't want to pay taxes anymore, even though those taxes pay for infrastructure (road) repairs, the Police and Fire departments, etc... (sigh)

          Democrats failed to inspire their base to give a fuck.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by swb ( 14022 )

      It all makes sense. I need a big minimum wage so I can buy good pot and pay for my girlfriend's abortion (if the pot wasn't so good, she'd remember her free pills!).

      And after all that I need a vacation!

    • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:46AM (#48317799) Homepage Journal

      It's a little more complicated than that.

      The republicans gerrymandered the fuck out of the country in 2010. That's not to implicitly forgive any past gerrymanderings by democrats or anything, but the house doesn't even remotely represent the popular sentiment of the country. My states' 2012 elections were more than enough evidence of that. 51% of voters voted for democratic candidates, 9 out of 13 seats went to republicans, with another really close. Nothing has changed since then.

      The senate, on the other hand, has always leaned a little disproportionately republican, because low-population, rural-as-hell states are overrepresented by constitutional design. Democratic control of the body is more a fluke than not, even though the soft majority of total votes tends to lean democratic.

      The people of this country are more liberal than the government of this country. Not by a huge margin, but a bit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The republicans gerrymandered the fuck out of the country in 2010.

        I find myself wondering how they managed that, since they didn't control all the State governments, nor did they control the Federal Judiciary.

        Which are the parties actually responsible for defining legislative districts...

        • They did have control of a substantial majority of legislatures when the redistricting happened.

        • Re:America is a RINO (Score:5, Informative)

          by radl33t ( 900691 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @03:26PM (#48320433)
          Because it happens in the house based on the Census.................... Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 states controlling 173 Congressional districts, while Democrats controlled redistricting in just 6 states with 44 Congressional districts (four states with 21 Congressional districts featured split control of the process). Independent or politician-led commissions, state and federal courts, drew the maps for 15 states, and another 7 have no Congressional redistricting process because they only have one at-large seat.
  • I would imagine Oregon and Alaska are recreational, but DC, too?

    Let's hope the pace quickens over the next few years -- at 3 states every two years it'l take too long to legalize it everywhere.l

    • by martas ( 1439879 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:44AM (#48317771)
      Good question. I wonder if there's something we could do to find out. But how.... OK, petty sarcasm aside, it's recreational but somewhat limited:

      Washington, D.C.'s proposal, while scaled back compared to the Oregon proposal, allows for a person over 21 years old to posses up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use and grow up to six cannabis plants in their home. It also allows people to transfer up to one ounce of marijuana to another person, but not sell it.

      (from cnn.com)

    • Yes, DC has voted to legalize recreational use. Also, earlier this year the DC council voted to decriminalize possession, so it was already just a $25 fine or somesuch.

  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:32AM (#48317651) Homepage Journal

    Let me guess: did the very same voters in these states also send people from the prohibition parties, to represent them in the federal government yet again? Right hand, you need to meet left hand some day.

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:33AM (#48317661)

    I always just assumed that most of the government there was already made up of stoners.

  • by AntEater ( 16627 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:35AM (#48317687) Homepage

    As a life-long resident of Vermont, I'm embarrassed that these other states have passed these referendums ahead of us.

    • The Democratic governor Mark Dayton is a dry drunk, so he has major cognitive dissonance and guilt when it comes to anything involving intoxicants and was in debt to police labor votes.

      So instead of a groovy, California style medical marijuana we got some lame experimental thing involving cannabis oils or something.

      But then again,. we can't buy booze in grocery stores or on Sundays, so maybe its a byproduct of our stern, Scandahoovian upbringing.

  • Money (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:37AM (#48317711)
    I assume a large part of the increasing "tolerance"(pun intended) towards recreational Cannabis use is that people, business and governments are FINALLY understanding it is revenue generating.

    People use it anyway, whether it is legal or not. They have for thousands of years. Why not make some legal money out of it instead of letting the cartels have all the fun!
    • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      Not to mention the money saved by not having to incarcerate nearly as many of the 45,000 state and federal prisoners currently serving marijuana-related sentences. Each prisoner averages around $30k a year to keep locked up.

    • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

      Except a lot of the revenue it generates is kind of bullshit and short term. Legalized cannabis just will not be expensive without some sort of serious artificial barriers to its production and distribution, kind of like what we have under prohibition.

      This hundreds of dollars an ounce BS just is not going to hold up. All of the small time growers using lights in apartments who need those super high prices to stay in business are going to get put out of business by pure economics within a few short years.

      In

    • Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @11:32AM (#48318295)

      Legalization motivations can't so easily be tied to one factor.

      There are many and people weigh them differently. There are just as people that think it's stupid to put people in jail for something that's less dangerous than alcohol as there are those that seek the tax revenue. There are other people that think laws shouldn't be intruding on what consenting adults want to do to themselves. There's another group that sees police resources wasn't policing cannabis use, not just in cost but time and the problems it causes with people respecting the law. And of course there is a group of people that just want to be able to smoke it. You just can't boil it down like you did.

      Very few people realize that the war on drugs costs $12 billion dollars a year in police and incarceration expenses (without including court and societal costs, particularly the damage civil forfeiture does to the economy). Stop that expenditure and collect tax revenue on the transaction along with bringing all production back stateside and the economic benefits are tremendous but almost no one realizes it or in the case of the "think of the children" people even care about the cost. The hope is the frontier states like Colorado will show that legalization is not only safe but sane.

      The counter weight is the media is doing their damndest to convince everyone kids are going to die BTW. How many times were you told on TV that marijuana edibles could be given out at Halloween and poison all the kids? Even though edibles have been available medically in many states for years now it's NEVER happened. You could even argue someone putting their $50 bag of THC gummies into some kids halloween bag is beyond reason, but the Media is playing this up for all it's worth. Think of the children damnit, cannabis is dangerous to them and some kid's going to end up dieing because cannabis is legal so we better hurry and ban it. Otherwise they might not have scary things to report about.

      • For another motivation...

        Right now, if I want to get some pot, I have to find somebody who deals in illegal drugs (or satisfy the Minnesota medical marijuana act provisions, which isn't happening). This means I'm encouraging and subsidizing illegal activity. It also means I'm in close contact with somebody who might try to sell me stuff considerably more dangerous than weed. What's important here is that there are so many people smoking the stuff that it creates a lot of illegal activity.

        If we legal

  • by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:42AM (#48317747)

    Now that cannabis is legal in Washington, I think we can look forward to -

    1. Much mellower politics
    2. A massive increase in sales of snacks in the area around the Conress

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I'm sure the cocaine consumption will keep snacking at a minimum.

      • Re:Two predictions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dubbreak ( 623656 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @12:08PM (#48318717)
        Humorous but true. Privileged members of society (such as members of Congress) don't need to worry about the legality of things such as recreational drugs. Whatever they were using before this law passed won't change because of it. No one is going to say, "Hey, marijuana is legal now, I'm gonna quit doing cocaine and smoke marijuana instead."

        I know plenty of professionals (lawyers, surgeons, anaesthetists etc) that use recreational drugs. The chances of them getting charged with anything if caught in procession are pretty much nil. Drug laws aren't for the protection of society in general, the purpose is to establish control over people that are viewed as "trouble makers". Upper society members that use 'responsibly' need not worry. If they make a public scene, yeah, they'll be some kind of slap on the wrist, but in general if you are rich enough or respected enough certain laws don't apply. They are for the people beneath you.
  • This is one of those topics where, if you go far enough left and far enough right, the two sides happen to meet on the same issue.

  • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @10:56AM (#48317899) Journal

    And I am aroused by the fantasy that all those republican victories were a negative response to the NSA and is going to revive the civil rights movement.

  • by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @11:04AM (#48317997)
    have an answer when someone says "I dunno what Congress is smoking..."
  • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @12:16PM (#48318783) Journal

    Winston Churchill said that America can be relied on to do the right thing, after exhausting all alternatives.

    Is this an example of that? Perhaps once every state legallises it, it will end up being legal federally. Then hopefully my own country will stop ignoring all the evidence and legalise it too.

  • by pak9rabid ( 1011935 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2014 @04:50PM (#48321155)
    If the federal government really wanted to stop the spread of or even regress the legalization of marijuana at the state level, all they have to do is cut federal funding for various things until the state in question made laws making it illegal again, similar to what they did with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act [wikipedia.org] back in the '80s.

/earth: file system full.

Working...