urbanSTL

You can't be more illegal than being federally illegal. Federal law trumps all, except when the reserved powers of the states are involved.

at best St.Louis could just not enforce marijuana laws.

^ True. I'd like to see that happen, though it won't. With the decriminalization law a couple years ago it's pretty much halfway there.

MatthewHall wrote:You can't be more illegal than being federally illegal. Federal law trumps all, except when the reserved powers of the states are involved.

Um, you can be "more illegal": if it's against state law too. In most places if you get caught possessing/selling weed you'll be prosecuted by the state. The federal government doesn't prosecute marijuana offenders unless it's a serious growing/dealing operation or involves violations across state lines. And in California, Washington, and Colorado, the DOJ has specifically declared they will not interfere with those states' laws unless they suspect violations of those laws (i.e., product being sold to minors, shipped out of state, money being used for criminal activity). The GOP-led House even voted to defund DEA raids of medical marijuana facilities. So in CO and WA it's legal for all practical intents and purposes--some people are even getting rich off it already. You said marijuana was just decriminalized in certain states, which isn't true. There are regulated, legal markets for it.

So it's true that federal law theoretically "trumps" legalization, but in practice it actually doesn't. And if a law isn't enforced, what is it but a piece of paper?

"Um" - The introductory indication that some withering sarcasm and contempt is about to be presented. Federal IS more powerful than state law. That's not my opinion. Marijuana is illegal everywhere for everyone in all the U.S. This is just the truth.

dweebe wrote:

wustl_eng wrote:In other news, legalization is spreading like wildfire. The entire west coast might as well be renamed "Cannabis Country." I suspect the GOP Congress will push back against some elements of DC's measure, like retail shops, but 70% in favor of legalization in the nation's capital is a major symbol of how far it's come.

I'd guess a few more liberal/libertarian states will legalize every upcoming election cycle until the movement slows a bit in the red states of the midwest and south. And of course the federal government will have to re-schedule marijuana in due time.

After the big red wave in this year's election, maybe the Democrats will latch on much harder to pot legalization in an effort to swing 2016 back their way.

in 2016 Senate- GOP defends 25 seats and Democrats 10, i know this election isnt even cerfited yet but its pretty clear Democrats will take back the Senate in 2016....

MatthewHall wrote:"Um" - The introductory indication that some withering sarcasm and contempt is about to be presented. Federal IS more powerful than state law. That's not my opinion. Marijuana is illegal everywhere for everyone in all the U.S. This is just the truth.

The "um" was more confusion; as in, I don't know why you keep saying that's true because it's not. Marijuana is indeed legal in CO, WA, soon to be Oregon and Alaska, because the federal laws are not being enforced. This is just the truth. This is a pretty useless semantic debate, though. I never denied federal law supersedes state; I just corrected you when you said weed was 'just decriminalized' or that 'you can't get more illegal' etc.

^NH and OH also have GOP incumbents up in 2016 and the Dems will likely target both pretty heavily. Especially NH where St. Charles, MO native Jeanne Shaheen hung on last night despite the Republican wave.

If Hillary runs its likely that GA and NC Senate seats will be targeted and while they fell to the GOP this time around changing demographics in those statesccould make it friendlier to Dems in a Presidential year.

Republicans have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once in the past 22 yrs

We seem to have two electorates when it comes to national elections. Midterms, with a smaller turnout that trends more conservative and the presidential years, with a larger more diverse electorate.

^Rand Paul?
Seriously there are some things I like about the guy but in a general election Hillary will have TONS of material to hang him on. All that libertarian stuff is great for college bull sessions but in the end Americans don't want their National Parks turned over to PepsiCo and social security sent to Wall Street

Plus his anti war stands that I find refreshing in a Republican will never get by the military industrial complex that has its teeth sunk in both parties but is truly vested in the GOP. They will pull out all stops to keep him from getting nominated

shimmy wrote:Well my point was that Democrats can't necessarily hang their hats on 95% of the Latino vote. Regardless of that though, Rand Paul isn't nearly as big of a libertarian hero as his father is (if you don't believe me, read the comment section on The Blaze on a Rand Paul article). He's been steadily trending more towards the middle, which would make him more appealing to mainline conservatives. The media is already trumping him as a Republican front-runner, and that plays a role in establishing a candidate's legitimacy, as opposed to his father who was always portrayed as the crazy old Libertarian.

Exactly.

shimmy wrote:Republicans on a whole are starting to figure out how to be more appealing to Latinos. So, it could easily go either way in 2016. That's my point.

In theory I agree with you but right now I think that's very wishful thinking. I don't think they're even close to getting the Latino vote they need. Maybe with someone like Jeb Bush who's from Florida and understands the immigration reform aspect. But Rand Paul has a lot of ground to cover to be a serious presidential candidate, and I'm generally sympathetic toward a lot of his positions. He's not Ron but he's still pretty out there in many ways. He'll face a very tough fight to be the GOP nominee in 2016; I highly doubt he'll win. I would be very, very surprised. In other words, I wouldn't bet on it.

I think another fresh democrat will upstage Hillary again in 2016, totally steal the show like Obama did. On the republican side it's way too early to tell to but I'm watching: walker, jeb, Romney.

I don't give a dead moose's last sh-t what the feds say about it. If you're in WA, CO, OR, DC, or AK, feel free to get legally high as much you want! Besides, the federal government will likely reschedule marijuana extremely soon. Also, in 2016, I believe the number of states it is legal in will reach 10. By 2020, I am positive that about half the states will legalize it, or at the VERY least, decriminalize it.

7 states that are next in line to legalize marijuana
Missouri

California, Nevada, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and.....

.....And there’s a dark horse in the heartland. The Missouri activist group Show Me Cannabis has been running an impressive educational campaign about marijuana legalization for the past few years. The group tried to get an initiative on the ballot last year, but came up short.

They’ve already filed paperwork for 2016 for a constitutional amendment to make it legal to grow, sell, and use marijuana for people 21 and over.

One reason Show Me Cannabis came up short in 2014 was the lack of support from major players outside the state. Given the lack of polls showing strong support for legalization, the big players remain sitting on their wallets, but that could change if good poll numbers emerge. And there’s still plenty of time to make the 2016 ballot.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/7-st ... marijuana/

Pot Is Making Colorado So Much Money They Literally Have To Give Some Back To Residents

http://www.hightimes.com/read/pot-makin ... -residents

There have been two federal bills introduced to legalize it nationwide. Whether Missouri likes it or not (which it should), marijuana may be legal soon anyway. My favorite part of this will be seeing vacant properties come back to life as grow-ops are built, anchoring residents and jobs just like our now-abandoned factories did back at their peak.

I'm all for it but you got to wonder if St. Louis City has the type of people who can handle it. Any weed related business would basically have to built like a prison as far as security goes. Any pot dispensary would almost surely be built or configured as smash and grab proof. We certainly don't have the type of people who can handle the libertarian like gun laws that Missouri has. Washington and Colorado have a very different population than the city of St. Louis. It's all good on paper though. Reality might be a different story unfortunately. It would be terrible if St. Louis came along and proved to the critics that legalized marijuana wasn't a great idea. That would suck.

^ Question...

Is marijuana such a high-crime business in St. Louis because perpetrators want it to smoke or because there is money to be made in dealing it?

My assumption was the latter. And once you can buy it legally at a business, won't the crime associated with it likely go down?

Even then, I don't think it'd prove that legal marijuana was a bad idea any more than legal hair extensions are a bad idea. (But I see your point about how it'd be used as justification.)