Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(28,784 posts)
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:34 PM Jan 2013

A bold new path: Moving beyond prohibition in Colorado and Washington


Insight and analysis from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.
In a three-part installment of Baker Institute Viewpoints that starts today, experts examine possible regulatory frameworks for legalized marijuana. Leading off for Viewpoints is guest writer Tom Heddleston, Ph.D., whose dissertation examined the formation and development of the medical marijuana movement in California.

...Colorado has taken a contrasting approach by centralizing dispensary regulations and their enforcement in the Department of Revenue. Although cities have the option of banning or allowing dispensaries, the same state regulations tie the Colorado dispensary system together. Colorado’s uniform guidelines contribute to the legitimization and transparency of dispensaries in the state.

...Amendment 64 and I-502 will allow state and local governments the ability to actively regulate the cultivation, sale and consumption of cannabis. By restricting use and sale to those over 21, limiting public advertising and signage, and specifying labeling and quality control, policymakers will increase their capacity to shape who consumes cannabis and how it is produced and taxed. Such policy outcomes are unavailable when the criminal law is used exclusively. Criminalization channels the cannabis economy into the illicit market, where age and quality control limits are nonexistent and inflated profits fuel violence and corruption.

It appears that federal law enforcement agencies may allow the states to enact their policies with minimal interference. According to the Seattle Times, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee expressed his commitment to implementation in a meeting with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. It is difficult, however, to forecast whether federal law enforcement agencies will work against the implementation of the new laws over the long term. If they do it begs two questions: Whose interest is served when federal law enforcement agencies work to undermine state and local efforts to increase their capacity for regulation? Why do federal agencies seek to maintain an approach that criminalizes a large segment of otherwise law abiding citizens and burdens ethnic minorities with a disproportionate share of criminal penalties?
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A bold new path: Moving beyond prohibition in Colorado and Washington (Original Post) RainDog Jan 2013 OP
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jan 2013 #1
x2 Ian Iam Feb 2013 #3
Good read. I left a reply in the original musiclawyer Jan 2013 #2
this is an excellent point RainDog Feb 2013 #4
I posted a comment on the DEA guy's post RainDog Feb 2013 #5


(2,335 posts)
2. Good read. I left a reply in the original
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:05 PM
Jan 2013

The missing link in this whole bold new path is what to do with the safety sensitive guy or gal
who wants to vape on a friday night but can't for fear of random drug testing which proves up use ..... but not impairment. This is an important equal protection issue


(28,784 posts)
4. this is an excellent point
Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:03 PM
Feb 2013

I think the only way drug testers can get a minimally accurate result would be through saliva tests, rather than urine tests.

Even so, until this issue is settled, those who are testing for drugs can choose x amt of metabolites as an indicator based upon avgs.

100 or more willing male and female volunteers of various weights, ages, and activity levels could consume cannabis and then allow themselves to be tested after a few hours. The avg parts per taken 4 hours after consumption would be the cut off level that companies would test for since that's also the outside time limit for psychotropic effects that might interfere with someone's perception while using heavy machinery or driving a vehicle.

The parts per that companies would test for in urine still wouldn't be accurate, but this baseline could provide a better way to deal with liability than what currently exists.


(28,784 posts)
5. I posted a comment on the DEA guy's post
Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:52 PM
Feb 2013

And it hasn't shown up.

I asked why the DEA classifies cannabis as a drug when it's clearly not. It's a plant. And I mentioned that people and companies are allowed to grow poppies in the U.S., even tho that poppy can be used to create an opiod that is far more dangerous than cannabis.

So there's no standard by which to classify cannabis as a drug when it's an unmodified plant substance, when you look at every other actual drug.

To me - removing cannabis from the drug schedules is the only way to go because the rest is just more bureaucratic b.s.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»A bold new path: Moving b...