Police Sieze 17 Tons of Marijuana

[Slyfox696]

Sly, there is a petition circulating in Missouri that seeks to add a constitutional amendment on the November 2012 ballot. The measure will legalize marijuana for people ages 21 and older; allow people to grow it at home for personal use; regulate it in a manner similar to alcohol; allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana to patients; and allow the cultivation of hemp, a low-potency (AKA no chance in getting intoxicated) strain of marijuana. The measure will also release people incarcerated for non-violent, cannabis-only offenses, and would expunge all records related to such offenses.

What are your thoughts on each specific part of this statute?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't marijuana crimes federal offenses, and not state offense? It seems to me, were this to pass and I doubt it would, this constitutional amendment would be in violation of federal law. I don't know how all of those laws work, so there are probably things I'm missing, but just on the surface that is how I would see it.

As far as releasing people and expunging records, no way that should ever happen. Ignoring for a moment the people responsible for trafficking the 17 tons of marijuana in this story could arguably be released and expunged (as an example), the fact is these people DID break the law. Just because the law changed, it doesn't change the fact that when they were accused, they broke the law.

I can say this. If such an amendment were presented, I would vote no. However, were it to pass, I would vehemently disagree with it, but would recognize the fact that of the people who voted, I was in the minority. And in this country, we like to believe democracy rules.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't marijuana crimes federal offenses, and not state offense? It seems to me, were this to pass and I doubt it would, this constitutional amendment would be in violation of federal law. I don't know how all of those laws work, so there are probably things I'm missing, but just on the surface that is how I would see it.

As far as releasing people and expunging records, no way that should ever happen. Ignoring for a moment the people responsible for trafficking the 17 tons of marijuana in this story could arguably be released and expunged (as an example), the fact is these people DID break the law. Just because the law changed, it doesn't change the fact that when they were accused, they broke the law.

I can say this. If such an amendment were presented, I would vote no. However, were it to pass, I would vehemently disagree with it, but would recognize the fact that of the people who voted, I was in the minority. And in this country, we like to believe democracy rules.

Marijuana crimes can be decriminalized by the state, however, I've heard stories of legal medical marijuana clinics being raided by the FBI.

I'm sure, if someone got in serious trouble over dealing with marijuana in a state where it's decriminalized, the state could sue the federal gov't, and take a pretty easy win in the supreme court. The federal gov't shouldn't have the power to override the state law.

 

[Slyfox696]

Marijuana crimes can be decriminalized by the state, however, I've heard stories of medical marijuana clinics being raided by the FBI.

Yes, because though the state has said it won't seek out those who are doing it, the feds still will.

the state could sue the federal gov't, and take a pretty easy win in the supreme court. The federal gov't shouldn't have the power to override the state law.

The powers of the State and the powers of the Federal government is an age old issue. I wouldn't be so sure the state would win, either.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

The powers of the State and the powers of the Federal government is an age old issue. I wouldn't be so sure the state would win, either.

Why not? Until a constitutional amendment is ratified prohibiting the sale and use of marijuana, the state is protected by the 10th amendment.

 

[Larry]

Sure it is.

But it's not. Smoking marijuana is not NECESSARY to anything. Smoking marijuana is a product which, as your said, ENRICHES their life. Enriching a life is great, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

True, it's not necessarily necessary to anything. However, the fact that it does enrich the lives of many who use it makes it apart of their pursuit of happiness which they are entitled to.

If smoking marijuana was necessary to being happy, then everyone who didn't smoke it wouldn't be happy.

That is not true. It's a mere difference of opinion. I don't think you can place a universal standard with that statement either saying that if it was necessary to be happy than those who don't use it wouldn't be happy. If you've never used it you have no idea. But I am going to explain why this is a false logic next.

Let's say you Slyfox love to build remote control airplanes. For you nothing or few other things bring you a greater joy than to build those planes and making them fly. Then however, someone who doesn't like you building them comes along and says "I don't like that, I don't agree with it, therefore you are no longer allowed to make those remote control airplanes". You would be crushed, it's not an absolute necessity to your survival that you are able to do it, but nonetheless in your life it has been essential to your happiness. The guy next door though who loves to build cars and is allowed to do that at no risk or penalty is not affected by it. It neither makes him happy or unhappy. For you though it was a necessity in your life to being happy. That little example alone shows that your statement is simply not true. What makes one happy may not make another happy, and so there is an objectivity there that you have overlooked.

Who has the right to tell you that you can't do what makes you happy? I think by saying "The Government" then what we are saying is that happiness of various kinds is not a right but a privilege handed out, decided, and wholly controlled by an authority figure who will allow or disallow you your personal happiness based on whether or not they personally agree with it. That my friend is wrong, and a direct violation of your human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that every man, woman, and child is entitled to in this country.

I've never once even been around it, and I'm a very happy person. Smoking marijuana is not necessary for happiness, and those who think it is, are likely addicted to it. And addiction can never be considered an element of happiness.

To make it clearer it's like taking away a canvas and brush from a person who loves to paint, a piano and sheet music from the pianist, and in this case making the substance that a large part of society greatly enjoys using illegal and putting up harsh penalties for it's use. Is someone who loves to do any particular thing, and does it constantly addicted to it? I would say not. But, take it away from them or worse, punish them for it, and happiness is in no way apart of the equation which is why it indeed is a necessity to certain peoples happiness, outside of addiction.

That's all fine and good, but it is illegal. And thus, since it is illegal, it deserves to be prosecuted.

This is true and I cannot disagree here. Since it is illegal, if you get caught with it, you by definition have broken the law and therein must pay the price. I never said that it was right for it to be illegal though.

You're now wanting to discuss whether or not marijuana should be legal or not, and as xfear can tell you, that argument is pointless. You can provide your facts and studies, I can provide my facts and studies and nothing will ever get accomplished. I'm not going to get into another debate on whether or not marijuana should be legalized.

I wasn't necessarily trying to discuss whether or not marijuana should be illegal, I merely stated my personal views on that subject as you and others have. It is true that nothing will be accomplished in trying to argue it, so as you've said that part is a practice of futility. I believe this is the part where we say: Agree to Disagree.

No, the challenge is getting people to care. Outside of mostly those who smoke marijuana, people don't care and see no reason for it to be legalized.

Again we agree. In saying that the challenge was getting the case heard, I was basically saying the same thing, that the challenge was getting people to care as one would have to come with the other. It was a preconceived notion of the statement. I believe part of the reason the people outside of those who use it do not care is because in their minds they don't think it affects them. I think if someone were to be given the platform to show them how it indeed does affect them, and how it could positively affect them to legalize it, they would then care and we could make some progress.

I know xfear tries to paint a pretty picture of sunshine and rainbows if marijuana was legalized, where drug dealers would no longer exist, there would be no more violent drug crime, where our country would become economically wealthy again, but the fact is not only is all that conjecture, is not likely to become true.

This is purely speculation on your part sir. By logic as well as other examples we have around the world a lot of what Xfear preaches is not only a truth but one that we can point at and prove. Legalization immediately eradicates the need for drug dealers.

Look at alcohol prohibition for the reality of the scenario. During it's prohibition there was an outbreak of bootleggers and crime from the underground illegal trade. Upon the repeal of the prohibition that almost completely ceased to exist which gives us great reason to believe that the same would be the case for marijuana. No one is going to buy from a guy on the street when they can easily attain it legally in a store, and that is just pure logic.

Violent drug crime? Well, look to the above paragraph for that answer too. The violent crimes associated with alcohol prohibition DID indeed stop upon repeal, and one again it is perfectly logical to assume the same for marijuana. Violent drug crimes would still exist no doubt, but not as a result of marijuana. Very few violent drug crimes are associated to marijuana as it is, so this would logically see a major decrease, while crimes associated to other drugs would stay the same if not decrease as well due to police and drug enforcement resources and focus being redirected towards the drugs we should be focusing on in a greater capacity.

Another reality of the repeal of marijuana prohibition is the fact that it would provide added revenue to the government and the economy as a whole through the sale and taxation of recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, and the production of hemp and the many products that can be made with it. This is not conjecture this is a simple truth. It would create another industry that we are currently cut off from that would provide great tax revenue and jobs as well. Simply apply the principles of supply and demand and follow the trail.

So the challenge for potheads is not getting the case heard, it's getting people to care. And considering, rightly or wrongly, the perception that people who smoke marijuana are high school dropout losers who leech off the welfare system, it's not likely people are going to care for a long time.

There are potheads at every level of society and recent study shows that it is just as prevalent in the upper class and in the white collar community as it is the stereotyped demographic. FYI, I do not smoke marijuana. I used to be a regular marijuana smoker but put it aside so I could pass drug tests for jobs without trying to use masking agents or other detox products to try and cheat. I am not a high school drop out, I went to college, I have been holding down the same job for quite a long time, and I do not receive any kind of government assistance. There are a lot more out there like me who do smoke than there are those who fit the stereotype you described. As you stated though, due to the perception it will be a challenge to get people to care and hear the case, and I can not argue with that one bit.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why not? Until a constitutional amendment is ratified prohibiting the sale and use of marijuana, the state is protected by the 10th amendment.

Because the argument would be marijuana could/would be classified as interstate commerce, and under the Commerce Clause, the right to enact policy on marijuana would fall to the federal government.

It's actually already been brought before the Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Raich.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Because the argument would be marijuana could/would be classified as interstate commerce, and under the Commerce Clause, the right to enact policy on marijuana would fall to the federal government.

It's actually already been brought before the Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Raich.

Oh, that's just complete and utter bullshit. Clarence Thomas has the right idea:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

Considering that growing small amounts of marijuana for one's own personal use, an issue that even came up within the case, can not in any conceivable way, be considered interstate commerce, I'm guessing we had some legal language olympics mixed with bias during that fucking trial.

Pisses me right off.

 

[Slyfox696]

True, it's not necessarily necessary to anything. However, the fact that it does enrich the lives of many who use it makes it apart of their pursuit of happiness which they are entitled to.

Enrich and necessary are two completely different terms. Government has the right to deny what might enrich, but not what is necessary.

I've already covered this with JGlass.

That is not true. It's a mere difference of opinion. I don't think you can place a universal standard with that statement either saying that if it was necessary to be happy than those who don't use it wouldn't be happy. If you've never used it you have no idea. But I am going to explain why this is a false logic next.

Let's say you Slyfox love to build remote control airplanes. For you nothing or few other things bring you a greater joy than to build those planes and making them fly. Then however, someone who doesn't like you building them comes along and says "I don't like that, I don't agree with it, therefore you are no longer allowed to make those remote control airplanes". You would be crushed, it's not an absolute necessity to your survival that you are able to do it, but nonetheless in your life it has been essential to your happiness. The guy next door though who loves to build cars and is allowed to do that at no risk or penalty is not affected by it. It neither makes him happy or unhappy. For you though it was a necessity in your life to being happy. That little example alone shows that your statement is simply not true. What makes one happy may not make another happy, and so there is an objectivity there that you have overlooked.

None of which has anything to do with the right of our government to ban the building of remote control planes. Building remote control planes is not a natural/unalienable right.

Who has the right to tell you that you can't do what makes you happy?

Much like JGlass, you're confusing natural rights (which is what I'm talking about) with legal rights. Let me give you an example I thought of about an hour ago.

Two homosexuals meet, fall in love and wish to be married. Their right to love whomever they wish is an unalienable right. The government should never be allowed to tell people who they are allowed to love. However, the right for these two homosexuals to be joined in the eyes of the law would be an issue of a legal right. In this case, the government does have the power to deny this union. Would it be the morally acceptable thing to do? I don't think so, but it would be their right, even though it probably would make the homosexual couple not very happy.

If that didn't make sense, or you are still unsure, all I can do is direct you to do some research on the difference between natural and legal rights.

I never said that it was right for it to be illegal though.

Which then gets us into a discussion of whether or not it should be legalized, which I'm not going to get into.

This is purely speculation on your part sir. By logic as well as other examples we have around the world a lot of what Xfear preaches is not only a truth but one that we can point at and prove. Legalization immediately eradicates the need for drug dealers.

Look at alcohol prohibition for the reality of the scenario. During it's prohibition there was an outbreak of bootleggers and crime from the underground illegal trade. Upon the repeal of the prohibition that almost completely ceased to exist which gives us great reason to believe that the same would be the case for marijuana. No one is going to buy from a guy on the street when they can easily attain it legally in a store, and that is just pure logic.

Violent drug crime? Well, look to the above paragraph for that answer too. The violent crimes associated with alcohol prohibition DID indeed stop upon repeal, and one again it is perfectly logical to assume the same for marijuana. Violent drug crimes would still exist no doubt, but not as a result of marijuana. Very few violent drug crimes are associated to marijuana as it is, so this would logically see a major decrease, while crimes associated to other drugs would stay the same if not decrease as well due to police and drug enforcement resources and focus being redirected towards the drugs we should be focusing on in a greater capacity.

Another reality of the repeal of marijuana prohibition is the fact that it would provide added revenue to the government and the economy as a whole through the sale and taxation of recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, and the production of hemp and the many products that can be made with it. This is not conjecture this is a simple truth. It would create another industry that we are currently cut off from that would provide great tax revenue and jobs as well. Simply apply the principles of supply and demand and follow the trail.

Again, I'm not getting into this discussion.

However, you might want to read this article written by the former Administrator of the DEA.

There are potheads at every level of society and recent study shows that it is just as prevalent in the upper class and in the white collar community as it is the stereotyped demographic.

Doesn't matter, it's the PERCEPTION I'm speaking of.

 

[Slyfox696]

Oh, that's just complete and utter bullshit. Clarence Thomas has the right idea:



Considering that growing small amounts of marijuana for one's own personal use, an issue that even came up within the case, can not in any conceivable way, be considered interstate commerce, I'm guessing we had some legal language olympics mixed with bias during that fucking trial.

Pisses me right off.

None of which changes the fact the state would struggle to win. Which is what I said in the first place.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

None of which changes the fact the state would struggle to win. Which is what I said in the first place.

That wasn't a counterargument. Just venting my frustrations with that case.

 

[Slyfox696]

That wasn't a counterargument. Just venting my frustrations with that case.

I know, but have you ever known me to skip an opportunity to pat myself on the back?

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't marijuana crimes federal offenses, and not state offense? It seems to me, were this to pass and I doubt it would, this constitutional amendment would be in violation of federal law. I don't know how all of those laws work, so there are probably things I'm missing, but just on the surface that is how I would see it.

Technically, yes. Marijuana is still illegal in most states via old laws, so they're also state offenses...I think. I don't know about every state, but I do know that some (including Missouri) have their own state-level versions of the Controlled Substances Act and they all include marijuana. By removing it from the state-version of the CSA, it'll be legal statewide. Unfortunately, federal illegality is a grey area for every MMJ states. As more and more states legalize marijuana via medical, regulation, or full-blast legalization, the federal government will have no choice but to remove cannabis from the CSA. That's our belief, of course.

A decade ago Colorado passed a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana and they're doing just fine without a lot of intervention from the federal government. Well, I mean compared to California, Michigan and Washington. The amount of intervention varies between marijuana states, really. I'm guessing it's due to the level of regulation considering Colorado heavily regulates MMJ, but I won't get into the details for every state here. Since the proposed amendment in Missouri is borderline full-scale legalization, the DEA might be busting doors down around every corner. Who knows how far the federal government will uphold marijuana prohibition if the amendment passes in Missouri.

As far as releasing people and expunging records, no way that should ever happen. Ignoring for a moment the people responsible for trafficking the 17 tons of marijuana in this story could arguably be released and expunged (as an example), the fact is these people DID break the law. Just because the law changed, it doesn't change the fact that when they were accused, they broke the law.

The new law will do just that, expunge non-violent marijuana-related offenses off their records such as possession or cultivation. The keyword is non-violent. Having a drug offense on your record is pretty bad and can hinder a person's life.

Although you asked to ignore the story, I'll use the proposed amendment to clarify a few things you mentioned: the people who were smuggling marijuana had clear intention on selling it, so the state of Missouri will consider that illegal since they're not a licensed vendor and the amount is obviously way too much to constitute as personal use -- I didn't read anything in the initiative regarding limits on possession except for how much a person can legally grow in the privacy of their own home, but MMJ states and low-priority cities have limits on how much a person can legally grow and possess in dried form (dried form being the product we smoke). It doesn't mention where vendors will get their merchandise from, but if it's going to be anything like Colorado, they'll be purchasing their merch from state-licensed growers and not your local drug dealer. I know this last part isn't necessary, but it's to counter any arguments as to where the marijuana comes from.

 

[Larry]

Well Fox, we've been talking about different things. You are talking about the extent of the law. I am talking about right and wrong. Though the government may technically have the power to make judgments as you described, those things like using marijuana, or building remote control planes as I made an example of are wrong for them to censor. I'm not saying their not within their powers to do it, I am saying they are not within their rights to do it. Just the same as how they do not have the right to tell a gay couple they can't be recognized as partners, they don't have the right to tell people what they can or can not consume to their own bodies. Nothing in the constitution grants them any power of the sort, they have usurped it.

 

[Slyfox696]

As more and more states legalize marijuana via medical, regulation, or full-blast legalization, the federal government will have no choice but to remove cannabis from the CSA. That's our belief, of course.

Yes, because we all know how much the federal government loves to give up its power.

The new law will do just that, expunge non-violent marijuana-related offenses off their records such as possession or cultivation. The keyword is non-violent.

You're mixing up your terms. This isn't a law, it's a petition to put on the ballot a vote for an amendment.

Although you asked to ignore the story, I'll use the proposed amendment to clarify a few things you mentioned: the people who were smuggling marijuana had clear intention on selling it, so the state of Missouri will consider that illegal since they're not a licensed vendor and the amount is obviously way too much to constitute as personal use -- I didn't read anything in the initiative regarding limits on possession except for how much a person can legally grow in the privacy of their own home, but MMJ states and low-priority cities have limits on how much a person can legally grow and possess in dried form (dried form being the product we smoke). It doesn't mention where vendors will get their merchandise from, but if it's going to be anything like Colorado, they'll be purchasing their merch from state-licensed growers and not your local drug dealer. I know this last part isn't necessary, but it's to counter any arguments as to where the marijuana comes from.

But the point I was making is according to the summary you gave, if a person's only offense was related to a cannabis crime, then they would be released from jail and their conviction would be erased. Which would include the people from this story, as the only thing they are being charged with (from what I remember reading) was strictly related to cannabis. So these people would go free, under the summary you gave to me.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well Fox, we've been talking about different things. You are talking about the extent of the law.

Indeed I have, from the very beginning.

I am talking about right and wrong.

Actually, I think you're talking about legalization vs. outlawing the substance, an argument I've said probably 10 times in this thread I am not engaging in.

Though the government may technically have the power to make judgments as you described

Exactly. Which was where the whole "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing came in.

those things like using marijuana, or building remote control planes as I made an example of are wrong for them to censor.

And I disagree. Using that same theory, government shouldn't ban cocaine, bath salts, meth, heroin, etc. either.

I'm not saying their not within their powers to do it, I am saying they are not within their rights to do it.

No, it's within their rights to do so as well.

I understand what you're trying to say, you're just not using the proper terms.

Just the same as how they do not have the right to tell a gay couple they can't be recognized as partners

Actually they do. And have. I think it's wrong, I think it's active discrimination, but they do have that right. What they don't have the right to do is to tell people who they can and cannot love.

they don't have the right to tell people what they can or can not consume to their own bodies.

But the use of marijuana is not just limited to their own bodies, it has an effect on society. Whether it's decreased job performance, exposing children to it, or being an agent which increases the likelihood of fatal car crashes, the use of marijuana is not simply limited to one person's body.

Nothing in the constitution grants them any power of the sort, they have usurped it.

The Necessary and Proper Clause disagrees, as has the many court rules which have upheld it.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Yes, because we all know how much the federal government loves to give up its power.

Stranger things have happened. It's an uphill battle for us, but we're determined to change the laws.

You're mixing up your terms. This isn't a law, it's a petition to put on the ballot a vote for an amendment.

I didn't catch that, thanks for pointing it out. I'm a victim of poor public schooling and it shows in my posts very often.

But the point I was making is according to the summary you gave, if a person's only offense was related to a cannabis crime, then they would be released from jail and their conviction would be erased. Which would include the people from this story, as the only thing they are being charged with (from what I remember reading) was strictly related to cannabis. So these people would go free, under the summary you gave to me.

Huh, I thought we were talking about the persons being charged after the amendment passed. It appears I've gotten way ahead of myself too, something I try my best to avoid. But you're right, they would be released. I'll be damned. Now I understand your point about not releasing the people and expunging their records, which I agree with.

It probably doesn't concern you, but here's the initiative for every Missourian to read:

Spoiler

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

1. Cannabis shall immediately be removed from the Missouri Revised Statutes list of controlled substances and shall no longer be listed among Missouri’s drug schedules.

2. Definition of terms, as used in this Act:
 (a) “cannabis” and “cannabis hemp” refer to the natural, non genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(b) “agricultural hemp” and “agricultural cannabis” means all products made from cannabis hemp with a THC content of less than one percent.
(c) “medical cannabis” means all products made from cannabis that are designed, intended, or used for the treatment of any human disease or condition.
(d) “adult use” and “personal adult use” refer to the non-medical consumption of cannabis with greater than 1% THC by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
(e) “cannabis accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis into the human body.
(f) “Department” means the Department of Health and Senior Services or its successor agency.
(g) “cannabis establishment” means a cannabis cultivation facility, a cannabis testing facility, a cannabis product manufacturing facility, or a retail cannabis store or other entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, manufacture, package, transport or sell cannabis, cannabis products and cannabis accessories.
(h) “impairment” means the inability of a person to safely perform functional tasks associated with his or her job or with driving due to the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Missouri law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Missouri law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:
(a) Possession of cannabis for personal adult use by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
(b) Cultivating cannabis that is not intended for resale within an area measuring ten feet by ten feet for personal adult use, or in an area sufficient to produce the quantity necessary to address a patient’s medical needs under the recommendation of a physician.
(c) Cultivating, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, packaging, distributing, transferring, displaying or possessing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for commercial purposes providing the person has a current, valid license to operate a cannabis establishment or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed cannabis establishment.
(d) Providing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for sale to consumers twenty-one years of age or older for personal adult use if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a retail cannabis store or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed retail cannabis store.
(e) Leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied or controlled by any person, corporation or other entity for any of the activities conducted lawfully in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection.

4. Medical cannabis shall be available to patients who have a physician’s recommendation.
(a) All patients engaged in cannabis therapy shall be afforded the same rights and privileges afforded to any patient treated through other pharmaceutical means.
(b) Cannabis acquisition, possession, and consumption shall be permitted to patients under the age of twenty-one with the consent of a parent or legal guardian and through the supervision of a parent or legal custodian and a licensed physician.
(c) Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for nor restricted from recommending cannabis for medical purposes to any person.
(d) Opinions pertaining to, and willingness to recommend medical cannabis therapy shall not be a criteria for the licensure of physicians; no physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical cannabis therapy.
(e) Any individual who is a legal cannabis patient in another state shall be granted the same rights and privileges as a legal Missouri cannabis patient.
(f) Medical care, including organ transplants, shall not be restricted in any way based on a person’s use of cannabis.

5. Not later than February 1, 2013, the Department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section.
(a) All regulations and rules imposed by the Department or any other agency of government shall meet a standard of strict scrutiny as to whether they further the goals of this Act and must be narrowly tailored to meet those goals. Such regulations shall include:
(i) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a cannabis establishment;
(ii) A schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees;
(iii) Qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a cannabis establishment;
(iv) Security requirements for cannabis establishments;
(v) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section;
(vi) The Department shall not require a consumer to provide a retail cannabis store with personal information other than identification to determine the consumer’s age, and a retail cannabis store shall not be required to acquire and record personal information about consumers other than information typically acquired in a financial transaction conducted at a retail liquor store.
(b) Each application for an annual license to operate a cannabis establishment shall be submitted to the department. The department shall: (i) Begin accepting and processing applications on July 1, 2013;
(ii) Immediately forward a copy of each application and half of the license application fee to the county, municipality or city and county in which the applicant desires to operate the cannabis establishment;
(iii) Issue an annual license to the applicant between forty-five and ninety days after receipt of an application unless the department finds the applicant is not in compliance with regulations enacted pursuant to paragraph (a);
(iv) Upon denial of an application, notify the applicant of the specific reason for its denial.
(c) Retail cannabis products for medical or adult use shall contain appropriate labeling, which outlines the weight and estimated potency of the product, lists all pesticides used in production, and summarizes the safe and effective use of cannabis. Labels shall not be promotional, false or misleading, and should be based on data derived from scientific study and prevailing human experience.

6. Nothing in this section shall:
(a) Require an employer to retain an employee who is impaired on the job by his use of cannabis.
(b) Permit operation of a motor vehicle by anyone who is impaired by cannabis.
(c) Permit the transfer or sale of cannabis intended for adult use to a person younger than twenty-one years of age.
(d) Forbid any individual or corporate property owner from prohibiting the distribution, sale or cultivation of cannabis within their dwelling.

7. Upon the passage of this Act, all persons incarcerated or under supervision of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole for non-violent, cannabis-only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act shall be immediately released.
(a) The Court shall order the immediate expungement of civil and criminal records pertaining to non-violent cannabis only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act.
(b) Within 120 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and make available to the public an application providing for the destruction of all cannabis-related civil and criminal records in Missouri and for any offense covered by this statute. These applications shall be distributed to all Circuit Court clerks within the State.

8. The Missouri General Assembly may enact a tax of up to $100 per pound of dried cannabis to be levied upon cannabis which is sold solely for personal adult use at the retail level.

9. No Missouri law enforcement personnel or state funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of federal cannabis laws involving acts which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this statute.

10. Any person who willfully impedes the lawful exercise of these provisions is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

11. Commercial and agricultural cannabis farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive, or in any way significantly different from any other commercial or agricultural farmer, manufacturer, processor or distributor.

12. No person twenty-one years of age or older shall be arrested or prosecuted, nor be subject to any criminal penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis.

13. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of Missouri hereby repudiate and challenge federal cannabis prohibitions that conflict with this Act.

14. Severability: If any provision of this Act or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

15. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.

16. All provisions of this section are self-executing and severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede conflicting state or federal statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other federal, state and local provisions.

Well, I'll be damned twice. After reading it again it appears I missed the section regarding regulation and licensing. If the smugglers were arrested after the amendment passed, then they wouldn't get away with it. Can't help but notice a few holes here and there but, meh, I'm sure they'll patch 'em up later.

 

[X]

Forgot about this thread. To everyone thus far who has made it clear that they believe we should follow the law 100% of the time regardless of whether we believe that law to be just or not, you scare the everloving shit out of me as a rational, empathetic human being and I sincerely hope a large herd of you are never given the chance to seriously affect public policy.

I think it's time I re-insert the Bakunin quote I had in my signature for two or three years again, since it couldn't be more relevant to this current discussion:

The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual. [Source]

 

[WHAT?]

Was it good shit? Bad shit? Native shit? WHAT?

 

[Slyfox696]

Forgot about this thread. To everyone thus far who has made it clear that they believe we should follow the law 100% of the time regardless of whether we believe that law to be just or not, you scare the everloving shit out of me as a rational, empathetic human being and I sincerely hope a large herd of you are never given the chance to seriously affect public policy.

I think it's time I re-insert the Bakunin quote I had in my signature for two or three years again, since it couldn't be more relevant to this current discussion:

I don't know if you're intending your post partly at me, and I cannot speak for anyone else, however I never once said you should follow the law 100% of the time regardless of whether you feel it is just or not. What I said is if you DON'T follow the law, you should be prepared to face prosecution for your transgression...like Rosa Parks did.