If it were legal in all of our states, it would shut down that illegal drug trafficking, wouldn't it? People wouldn't need that Mexican stuff. They'd just grow their own.

I'm more curious how this pans out with drug screens for employment. It seems they could still choose to not hire you if you test positive for marijuana.

If individuals were to grow their own I could see that making a sizeable dent in illegal MJ trafficking but how is the fed gov going to be able to regulate MJ and "tax the hell out of it" if people are growing their own plants?

The pot is going to be available in the equivalent of a liquor store, and it is also going to be allowed to be grown for private use. My guess is both will thrive, so to speak. But that doesn't have anything to do with interstate trafficking. For those of you who are less than a certain age, back in the old days different states had different drinking ages. So a person could go across state lines and buy booze and bring it back to their home state. But that was still illegal, and if caught they would be punished for underage possession. The state where it's illegal doesn't care where the underage person got it. The same rules would apply for OTC pot sales. Just because you can buy it and smoke it in Washington doesn't mean you can buy it and carry it into another state. Will they? Of course. Just like kids drink while underage. But not making it legal doesn't keep that from happening.

The tax issue is a good question. Will people choose to buy their pot pre-prepped, or grow, dry, and process their own? How much is your convenience worth? My guess is there will be plenty of stores doing just fine, and there will be people who enjoy growing their own. Both can coexist. I'm certainly more comfortable with the home grown because I see it as having less social blow back. But I'm ok with either way. And other states will learn from initial mistakes and improve the process over the next 20 years.

Are you speaking about Colorado? From what I read about the WA initiative in order to grow or produce MJ you would have to apply for a license and pay a yearly fee of $1000. Even then you wouldn't be able to sell it directly to consumers, only wholesale to the pot shops. It sounded to me that if you were to have a MJ plant in your house or backyard it would be considered illegal production of MJ.

What she said!
The GOP mixing in the religion with government was a major turn off for me

One of my friends was wondering about a similar situation, where she would have to do drug testing for a job in the US, but she had used marijuana in the Netherlands shortly before, where it was legal for her to do so.
I would imagine that a company would be able to choose not to hire you if they found a certain amount in your system, just as they would if you showed up visibly drunk or hungover; It might be legal for you to have done it, but an undesirable quality to some employers. Termination of a job you already have, however, would probably be a different situation if they only found traces of the substance through testing but you hadn't come to work under the influence or publicized your use of it.

I believe in Colorado you are allowed to own 6 plants for personal use, and I think this is a good way to go. And of course buying the plants should be taxed. But if you have a green enough thumb to turn seeds you already own into plants, then go for it (as far as I'm concerned). As far as the drug testing thing, I don't think the two are related. However, the companies that drug test could presumably take THC off their list of drugs they're testing for if it's no longer illegal. I guess it depends on if they were testing for it because it was illegal or if it's because you think it's dangerous to the job. But then that should be a sobriety test, not a drug test in its traditional sense.

I do wonder how the legalization and taxation of marijuana at a federal level would impact our budget and spending. It would be an interesting study.

I agree. That's why I think it's good for it to start at 2 very socially liberal states (I don't see Colorado as a liberal state per se, but they definitely have their hippy liberal reputation). Let the people who really want it to succeed work out the kinks before it moves forward in other states or federally. If it turns out to be a phenomenal failure, then it won't have caused too much damage, relatively speaking. And if the sky doesn't fall and life continues on more or less as normal, and maybe there is a small addition to the coffers due to increased sales taxes and more importantly reduction in incarceration costs, then more states will probably get on board. And if it's a massive windfall for these states, then awesome! Schools can re-introduce music programs into schools, which seems apropos for money earned from pot sales.

But, they wouldn't have to take it off the list. There are companies that are not hiring tobacco/nicotine users anymore and they do a blood test to check. It will be interesting to see which companies take THC off of their list.

Has anyone seen the petitions going around asking to secede from the union? These are official petitions on the White House website and after 25 thousand signatures the Obama Administration has to respond. Currently Texas is leading the charge with over 75 thousand signatures.

Will Obama blame Bush for this, too?

LOL. I'm not sure how "official" these petitions are. Yes, that website is part of the White House website and is a mechanism set up to allow people to petition government for a redress of grievances, but it has no legal status other than point of information. As for the White House "having" to respond, they only "have to" because they said they would, not because (as far as I can tell) there is any legal requirement to. This whole thing is nothing more than a means to allow people to say they've let the government know what they think about whatever.

In any event, the response should be simple, leaving aside the whole we-had-a-Civil-War-to-deal-with-this-issue. The president doesn't have any authority at all regarding admitting states to the Union* or letting them secede. People might as well petition McDonald's to let their states secede.



* Speaking of admitting states to the Union, I'm realizing that no one has commented on on the referenda in Puerto Rico last week. Two questions were on the ballot. The first asked whether the current status with the US (territory) should be maintained or altered. 54% voted in favor of changing the current status. The second question asked whether, if the status were changed, would voters rather see it changed to statehood, independence or sovereign free association. 65% favored statehood, while 1% favored independence.

I think the Puerto Rico thing is really interesting, and I'm a supporter. But I can see requiring them to have a higher level of English fluency and literacy first. Apparently this has been a common requirement in the past and might help sway certain constituencies who would be vehemently opposed.

The states seceding topic reminds me of this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fr...audits-america

In which The Daily Show audits America. (Note that there is some pottymouthedness involved)

The petition thing is ridiculous because Michigan is one of the states that has a petition and we were a BLUE state. When you look at the actual petitions, there are people from all these different states signing them. Yet, when you read articles about it, it sounds like the states themselves are asking for it, not random people who are making up silly petitions on whitehouse.gov.

Also, virtually all of the reddest states take more money than they give to the federal government. The red states, as a whole, would be a much poorer nation if they seceded.

Actually English is already required to be taught in the schools in Puerto Rico. And honestly, I don't see why a higher level of fluency and literacy would be required, and just saying that it was in the past isn't a good enough reason to me.

That being said, I'm really surprised the whole PR thing isn't making more waves. I'm also not sure where I stand on it myself being a Puerto Rican.
*shrugs* Not like it matters until they submit a formal request to the Congress requesting statehood, and I'm doubtful that will happen.

SAMESIES!

I know I definitely don't want independence. I'm don't think that would work out too well. But I'm torn between statehood and "free associated state" or whatever the official term is. Mainly cause I don't know 100% of what the latter means and I haven't had time to read up on it :p

I just learned something. How have I missed knowing this about y'all? :o

It was my understanding that nobody was making a big deal about the Puerto Rico thing because 1. So many voters didn't even select any option on the question 2. The incumbent mayor who was pro-statehood was not reelected in favor of another mayor who is not as big on the statehood issue. There was also something about Texas and California losing representation (I am bad with politics but I try; I think it was in the House of Reps but there might have been something about the electoral college too) if PR became a state, so other states might not be so gung-ho about it

I hadn't heard/read that about those not selecting an option. But I think you mean governor rather than mayor.

That's only because Congress has set the membership of the House at 435. Congress can change that, as they did when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted. (But then they changed it back after the 1960 Census.)

As for the Electoral College, the number of electors each state gets is the total number of members they have in Congress (2 senators + ___ representatives) so that also turns on the 435 representatives number set by Congress.

I'm technically only half--other half Polish.

ETA: I do feel stronger ties to my Puerto Rican heritage than Polish, however. I have been to the island roughly 15 times (we have family there) and have been generally surrounded to more Puerto Rican customs and such, throughout my life.

I feel a little better now. :D

After GeorgiaGreek's post, I did a little more digging. It seems there was some controversy surrounding the referendum, with some people and groups (including the new governor) recommending that people not vote on the second question as a protest of the form of the referendum. If the total number of voters is considered, 45% voted for statehood, while 26% (the second largest group) didn't answer the question.

Congressional leaders are saying that, for that reason, they'll ignore the referendum.

BRB DYING :eek::p

That's nice. A plurality voted in favor of statehood, but we'll just ignore the whole issue.

Yeah, but I can see the point in that a majority did not vote for statehood. Seems to me that if statehood is the goal, there's going to need to be a showing that a solid majority support it.

Not US elections, but this has me hoping that the Scottish Parliament does a better job of framing the question(s) for the 2014 referendum on independence.

Which is Congress' right to do. There is nothing that states that Congress has to allow states to join.

And what is this about Scotland voting for independence? I did not hear about that at all MC.

The SNP (Scottish National Party), which has always campaigned for Scottish independence and pledged to hold a referendum on the matter, won a majority in the Scottish Parliament in the last election. (Prior to that, since 2007, it was a minority government.) Last month, British PM David Cameron and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond signed an agreement (the "Edinburgh Agreement") providing a legal framework under which the referendum will be held. I forgot with my earlier post that it provides that a single question, the exact wording of which will be decided by the Scottish Parliament, will be put to the electorate. The idea of the single question, as opposed to multiple questions as were used in PR, is to provide a clear answer -- "a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect."

The SNP says it is in favor of retaining the monarchy (I wonder whether Elizabeth II would suddenly become Elizabeth I north of the border, though) and of Scotland joining the Commonwealth.

The referendum is scheduled to be held in the Fall of 2014.

Polls have tended to show that more Scots oppose independence than support it. But Sean Connery will, no doubt, vote for independence.

Of course, but then again, we were founded on the principal of no taxation without representation. If the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, they should be allowed at least a debate about the topic. I feel the same about DC.

IIRC Puerto Rico does not pay federal income taxes, although they do pay local taxes.

Actually it's DC who gets hosed in a lot of ways when it comes to lack of representation. But they at least do get a say in who the Chief Executive is.

Interesting. I didn't know all of that. It's funny though, because a friend of mine who is a massive Anglophile calls the SNP "Labour with a Scottish accent."

They also do pay federal payroll taxes, and federal employees also pay federal income tax IIRC.

Thinking on it a bit, I think I now know where I stand. I don't want either statehood or complete independence. I would prefer something like teh Compact of Free Association that several small states in the Pacific have with the USA. I'm afraid if we become a state, we will lose our sense of national identity. On the other hand, if we become independent, I'm afraid all the sacrifice and good done for the US by Puerto Ricans will be forgotten by both sides. *shrugs*

Oof, sorry, brain fart on that one. I think I had the word "majority" bouncing around in my head and it came out on the keyboard. I know Puerto Rico isn't a city :o