The most important part of this to me is that it generates a huge amount of precedent for the Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Guatemala that are considering legalization. The United States has used its global influence to push drug prohibition in other countries -- see for instance <a href="http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=218#2" rel="nofollow">http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannab...</a> -- and with these victories -- even if they prove to be merely nominal -- the people of Latin America can see that prohibition is crumbling.<p>There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the real victory here.
Alcohol prohibition in the United States underwent a similar process. New York legalized alcohol, while it was still prohibited by federal law. Eventually, enough states had stopped arresting and prosecuting people for alcohol that it was not feasible to continue federal prohibition.<p>Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.
In unrelated news, doctors announced unprecedented drops in the number of 20-40 year olds suffering from migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and insomnia.
Interestingly enough, Washington State's similar initiative, Initiative 502, passed as well tonight. It would seem momentum is growing around legalization. How the federal government via the DEA and DOJ ultimately handle these two victories for legalization proponents may be telling in regard to how close a national concensus is.
I'm actually optimistic about civil liberties in this country. Didn't see that coming. Two states legalized marijuana and possibly four more states have approved gay marriage (btw, I rarely smoke and I'm not gay).<p>Let's keep this going.
Provided this actually happens (ie: it doesn't get sabotaged by the DEA), I expect Colorado's tourist numbers and college applications will compete for the largest increase next year.<p>Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.
Prohibition is clearly stupid and has caused very great harm. Other people have mentioned the death and destruction in Mexico as one example. I am strongly pro legalisation.<p>But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self-medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the ability to do better science.)<p>Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.
As an outsider, I'm not sure I understand what this means. Can someone explain how this will work in practice? in the sense that this doesn't over-rule federal laws, and presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?
Living in Colorado, I voted yes on Amendment 64. This was mostly because I think the hemp and 'recreation' industries will pull in a lot of tax revenue (of which, the first $40 million will be put directly into a public schools fund for the state), as well as potential job growth.<p>I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be considered 'dispensaries'?<p>It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp based industry get started up at all.
This is all well and good, but at this point there's no guarantee that the federal government won't slap it down. My limited understanding of the law suggests there are two avenues for the federal government to do so:<p>I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]<p>Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]<p>II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]<p>A quick example of how the ICC could be applied:
If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.<p>I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.<p>[1]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause</a><p>[2]<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-m...</a><p>[3]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause</a>
Good news! Let farmers grow it and people at home. Sell it, tax it, allow people to buy it in a safe environment instead from dealers that try to get people hooked on other crap. This makes weed less of a gateway drug and more a greatway drug.
At the time of posting, it also looks like Washington is going to pass their marijuana ballot too.<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization-results_n_2074168.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalizat...</a>
Didn't think I'd ever see a .gov page officially referencing: a) a ballot initiative, b) marijuana and c) Cheetos & Goldfish, but here you go: <a href="http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=GovHickenlooper%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251633686228&pagename=CBONWrapper" rel="nofollow">http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagenam...</a>
I think they are plenty of good arguments for legalizing marijuana - however, things like this tend to make me think twice about it:<p>"In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.”<p><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-drivers-20110703" rel="nofollow">http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot-dri...</a>
Are there any other instances of this kind of issue to compare this against and see how it's going to play out. I'm trying to think of other instances where something was illegal at the federal level, and states have made that legal?
<i>The amendment will allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of the drug at specially regulated retail stores.</i><p>I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments, but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person?<p>And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even corporations to get their hands on these records?
I am having a hard time understanding the reasons for support here in HN so please help me out. A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it? Suppose that it is a more powerful drug that is very hazardous to a person exist. Doesn't that speaks to the same situation? Should we legalize that as well?<p>I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.<p>With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of alcohol addiction, etc...
I'am curious how health insurace companies will react. Would they charge more from people who take marijuana? Would it be legal for them to investigate if someone is cannabies smoker?
Legalization this is not. It's decriminalization under state law, but that doesn't mean that federal criminal laws go away. The Supreme Court is content to have both laws exist in force, IE, it didn't suggest in Gonzalez vs. Raich that medical marijuana laws are illegal exercises by the state, merely that they don't remove existing federal laws.
unfortunately it just failed in Oregon:<p><a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_measure_80_legalization.html#incart_river_default" rel="nofollow">http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_m...</a>
Can't wait to see the impact analysis from <a href="http://www.marijuanamajority.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.marijuanamajority.com/</a><p>Perry Rosenstein++