federal vs state laws

Cool Dale...I mean Rusty. Thanks for the link. Sounds like a dogfight brewing to me. There has always been the states rights issues, starting with before the constitution got ratified, and then we even had a civil war over the it. The feds won big time and, I think, the federal government has over stepped it's bounds ever since. Now we had the Supreme court (judicial branch) decide on a presidential election (2000) with hardly anyone batting an eye. The forward thinking, wise, designers of this once great democracy, must be rolling in there graves. I am not alone in thinking we are seeing the beginnings of the downfall of a once great democracy all due to an unfettered Supreme Court and the federal government just assuming powers. Checks and balances were designed into our constitution so those abuses of power wouldn't happen. I think it was Nietchke who said "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely". Time to get off my soapbox, and bring my blood pressure back to normal now. Geez, I sure get myself pissed-off easy. Fucking commie bastards are all at fault, really ......Doh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taiden

Actually. State law does control the legality of Marijuana. The only reason states have not made it legal, is because they lose a LOT of federal money. The feds are allowed to say "man, what a shame you legalized marijuana. man, what a shame this federal check for $45,000,000 has void written on it in red ink!"

^ according to my history teacher who is an ex-new york district attourny. She knows her shit.

If a state can gain more through taxes on marijuana than they will lose from the federal grants, I'm sure many states would have legalized use. Until then, Maine just decriminalizes it.

Medical marijuana anyone? Are they not losing the same amount of funding if any that they would be if they legalized it for adults 21 years or older..in doing so taking a step towards preventing teen drug use. I agree with Nevada's perspective on it hands down...

If passed by a majority of Nevada voters, the initiative would:

1. eliminate the threat of arrest and jail for adults aged 21 and older who responsibly use and possess up to one ounce of marijuana (which is the equivalent of one-and-a-half packs of cigarettes);
2. regulate the manufacture, taxation, and sale of marijuana, whereby establishments that are licensed to sell tobacco will also be permitted to sell marijuana, provided that they neither sell alcohol nor are within 500 feet of a school or place of worship. Gas stations, convenience stores, grocery stores, casinos, and dance halls would also be prohibited from selling marijuana.
3. earmark half of marijuana-related licensing fees and tax revenues to alcohol and drug treatment and education, with the other half going to the state's general fund;
4. maintain penalties for underage marijuana use, smoking marijuana in public, using or possessing marijuana on school grounds or in prisons, and transporting marijuana across state lines;
5. increase penalties for providing marijuana to minors, as well as for motorists who kill someone while under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, or any other substance; and
6. take effect on November 28, 2006, if a majority of Nevada voters pass the initiative in November 2006.

This initiative would benefit Nevadans in numerous ways. It would:

* Allow police to focus on serious crimes. By removing marijuana from the criminal market, the initiative would free up police time so police officers can focus on violent crimes, property crimes, and people who drive under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, or any other substance. According to the latest FBI statistics, Nevada's violent-crime rate is 7th highest among the 50 states.
* Generate tax revenues for drug education and treatment. The initiative requires that adults who use marijuana legally in the privacy of their homes must obtain their marijuana from legally regulated businesses, thereby generating tax revenues for the state rather than profits for drug dealers. According to a study released by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas in 2002, regulating marijuana would generate $28 million in annual tax revenues. (You can download the study here.) The initiative would earmark half of this money for drug education and rehabilitation programs, which currently receive only $13.5 million annually from the state.
* Make the roads safer. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the number of alcohol-related auto fatalities in Nevada rose 29% from 2001 to 2002. And 45% of car-crash deaths in Nevada were alcohol-related -- the 10th highest rate in the nation. By liberating the police from having to hunt down marijuana users, the initiative would allow police to spend more time on the roadways to intercept and arrest dangerous drivers, whether they are under the influence of marijuana, alcohol, or any other substance. And, if a motorist kills someone while under the influence of marijuana or any other substance, the initiative doubles the maximum fine and prison sentence for people convicted of such offenses.

Nevada's current marijuana laws are costly, they have failed to prevent teenagers from using marijuana, and they keep police from focusing on DUI and other real crimes. Bringing marijuana into a regulated system will serve all Nevadans well.

The argument I heard is that it's going to send the wrong message to kids..when really it would be discouraged until they were of age I'm sure. Hopefully this will pass next year :thumbsup:

federal vs state laws

Did they mention anything about growing for personal use? I'm sure they would make that illegal, as there would be no taxes to gain from that.

federal vs state laws

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlwaysBlazed

My dad told me if you get caught by a federal agent all that happens is a small fine no matter what unless you're selling.

That's a pretty far stretch. Even if you are carrying an amount which YOU would consider a personal amount, they can arrest you for possession with the intent to distribute, which can land you some serious fines/jail time. It was worse when the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, but you still could go to jail more or less based on quantity alone. Maybe not incredibly likely, but very possible.