Slashdot Mirror


Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

SternisheFan notes that Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado over marijuana legalization. The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines. The suit invokes the federal government's right to regulate both drugs and interstate commerce, and says Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana has been "particularly burdensome" to police agencies on the other side of the state line. In June, USA TODAY highlighted the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska: felony drug arrests in Chappell, Neb., just 7 miles north of the Colorado border have skyrocketed 400% in three years. "In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the state of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining plaintiff states' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," says the lawsuit. "The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws."

44 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. Simple answer... by Dins · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All they need to do is legalize it themselves.

    1. Re:Simple answer... by Guy+From+V · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By mot doing so, Congress makes itself look weak..er. I have heard rumors in the county next to me in OR (I'm in WA) that last year there were a a lot of instances of jury nullification brought up in some marijuana cases. They either never carried all the jury or judges lied and intimidated the jury beforehand or after...illegally...but still effective. Not too long after that Measure 91 passed. Even just the rumor is an indication of a shifting awareness, go with the flow, D.C. and not look any wimpier than you already do.

    2. Re:Simple answer... by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or they could you know, legalize and tax, making money legit instead of stealing it to use against good americans

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re: Simple answer... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Informative

      And taxes are good, right? Not like that's stealing or anything.

      And it all goes to a good cause.

      Yeah, because shit like highways, water and land management, law enforcement and public infrastructure is self-sustained, for free, with nothing but bunnies' farts and pixie dust magically coming out of Tinkerbell's ass.

    4. Re: Simple answer... by Bigbutt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Has Tinkerbell been fucking bunnies [b]again[/b]! Honestly you'd think she'd learn after last time. (Bunnies with wings :rolleyes: )

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    5. Re: Simple answer... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hahahahahaha you think tax money goes to pay for water and highways. No. Tax money goes to pay for stuff like this, this and this.

      I know that *some* (not all) taxes go to stuff like that. If you are claiming that NO TAXES go ever to public infrastructure, then you are going to have to do better than just pointing at counter examples.

      I never claimed that ALL TAXES go to public infrastructure. I claim that taxes PAY for infrastructure. That claim does not says "ALL TAXES go to infrastructure" or that "infrastructure gets funded PROPERLY by ALL TAXES."

      As a result, your reply, by logical necessity, is misplaced and inadequate. Unless you can prove anywhere that I've said anything that warrants your reply, you have to admit, if you are honest, that you are simply building a strawman.

      Haven't you noticed that America's infrastructure is crumbling?

      Yes.

      Now why is that?

      Because its maintenance and expansion is not funded properly. This is no proof that taxes never go there. It is certainly not proof of the following statement:

      And taxes are good, right? Not like that's stealing or anything.

      People shouldn't expect not to be challenged when they post asinine shit like that without a context or at least some thought behind it.

      Giving more tax income for the government is no better than giving a crackhead more money.

      There is not one government. There is federal government, there is state and local government, and depending on the region, tribal government. Each operates differently, with different levels of efficiency and honesty (or lack thereof) when it comes to collecting taxes (and putting them to good use.)

      In this specific context, this thread, taxation is being referred to state and local taxation. It is not accurate to describe taxation and public spending in such over-generalized terms. It is great from the point of rhetoric.

      It has been a long time since the US government has made effective use of its money. Besides - all tax revenue is barely enough to cover the INTEREST on the deficit (even at these low low rates) - let alone the deficit. A few hundred million here or there will make zero difference to the ocean of pork.

      Here you are properly elaborating a good point (finally). It still does not explain what states are to do with pot legalization, the war on drugs, state rights over their own taxation, their relation on that topic to the federal state, the nature of interstate commerce, free passage of citizens from one state to another to purchase an item and the arbiter role of federal government in such activities.

      There are the goddamned subjects of this threat. Alcohol is already taxed with different sale taxes across the states, so logically legalization of pot by a state will imply its taxation by said state.

      Inefficiency of (or even corruption during) taxation of an item by a government, be it local, state or federal, does not preclude a government, in particular a state government from exercising that sovereign power. If you oppose a state from taxing pot as a condition for legalization, you are going to have to do better than saying "taxation is bad or badly done."

    6. Re:Simple answer... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
      What do you actually expect it is protecting us from?

      Do you feel some responsibility to violent gangs like....we created them with bad laws, and now we have to nurture them? Why do you not want legal production in the daylight where product can be weighed and inspected. Where people who defraud their customers or violent thugs who would prey on honest businessmen and their wares can be brought to justice instead of left out in the cold to the wolves....over what?

      Seriously....what the fuck justifies arrest and incarceration over pot? What justifies AT ALL interfering with the lives of consenting adults over this flower? I really want to know because in 20 years of being a pot smoker the worst negatives I have seen have all been the result of these stupid laws.

      Honest people being robbed and held at gunpoint with no recourse, nobody to call. Dishonest dealers who rip off their customers. Families torn apart, jobs lost, all over... some mad obsession with moralistic laws against what is, at worst, a minor vice.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Simple answer... by barbariccow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?

      That's not unusual at all. It draws a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. Would you prefer vague guidelines like "for private consumption" vs. "for sale", or "small amounts"? Having strict and easily to check guidelines also avoids wasting time on law enforcements and court costs. 100 grams, and the police lets you go. 101 grams, the hold you and take you to court. Whether you're guilty or innocent, it is _clear_ which one, and that is a good thing Obviously you shouldn't try to go to the extreme limit of what's allowed. If your scales say you have 100 grams, but your scales are off and you really have 101, that's no excuse. Just stay below 90 and you're fine.

      I think parent was questioning why any limit at all, as in what makes possessing 101g turn you into an evil anti-american, versus an upstanding 99g toter.

    8. Re: Simple answer... by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The money is the icing on the cake.
      The militarized enforcement and unchecked abuse of power against the populace is the real goal.

  2. How about ignoring it? by bucket_brigade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.

    1. Re:How about ignoring it? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are obviously a part of Satan's cabal, attempting to spread his grip to God-fearing communities through the insanity-inducing devil-weed known as marajawana...

    2. Re:How about ignoring it? by david_bonn · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.

      There are lots of examples of this in action. Many states have laws against adultery, cohabitation, and consensual oral sex. Yet when was the last time someone got a felony rap for carpet munching?

      On a even less serious note, many states have ridiculous laws which were put on the books back during the Jurassic period of American jurisprudence. So, as an example, in Washington state it is illegal to sell bedding or meat on a Sunday. You will recall the wave of busts against Bed Bath and Beyond, Pottery Barn, and Safeway. Yeah, right...

    3. Re:How about ignoring it? by boristdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I remember this Nancy Reagan talking point. Proved to be 100% bullshit.

      Look, I believed all the BS I was taught in my childhood as well. I believed it until I was in my late 40's. Then I finally tried the devil weed.
      My life has improved greatly since I became a regular "pothead" at age 48 ( I'm now 51). I'm happier, I sleep better, I get more things done, I'm a nicer person. I smoke weed almost every evening after work.

      You should try it.

  3. Enforcing pot laws is big business by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in many states, and they don't want to lose that revenue. It is not about right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is really about money. But as the various other states see revenue flow into states like Colorado in the form of pot taxes, they may change their minds, just like all states changed their minds about gambling and lotteries.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    1. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      still, legalizing it would be the better option, Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana, plus it frees up law enforcement to pursuit more serious crimes, empties jails and prisons of otherwise law abiding citizens that were only merely in possession or smoking a small amount of herb, i hope this forces the federal Govt to finally realize that marijuana should be legalized just like alcohol (legal for any adult, and no driving under the influence)

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Informative

      still, legalizing it would be the better option, Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana, plus it frees up law enforcement to pursuit more serious crimes, empties jails and prisons of otherwise law abiding citizens that were only merely in possession or smoking a small amount of herb, i hope this forces the federal Govt to finally realize that marijuana should be legalized just like alcohol (legal for any adult, and no driving under the influence)

      The problem is that federal Byrne grants are very lucrative and legalized marijuana is probably a losing proposition financially for states. Or, at least, for police agencies. Ever wonder why the officers on COPS turn into raving lunatics looking for drugs every time they pull some poor guy over? I mean, seriously, they act like addicts looking for a fix. The reason is that if they find drugs they make money from the feds, so every little joint is worth money.

      We've set up a system of perverse incentives. Apparently in Nebraska it's reached the point that subsequent arrests for drugs aren't yielding more federal dollars so it's not worth it to them.

    3. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would seem, if the other states don't want to lose the revenue from drug enforcement (which I believe is certainly true), that this increase in arrests and subsequent convictions/asset forfeiture would be welcomed.

      Yea, but now they also want a paycheck from Colorado. See how that works?

    4. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana"

      Colorado probably got significantly increased business from being the first, surrounded by neighbours where it is still illegal. They probably even have increased secondary trade from people travelling in to get marijuana and then buying other stuff. Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.

    5. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Funny

      And what means are used to detect drivers who are high on pot?

      Show them a clip of a Pauli Shore movie on YouTube. If they laugh, they're driving under the influence.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by qwijibo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From my point of view any compromise in the belief that it is morally wrong to ....

      This is why the states rights model makes more sense than overbearing federal laws.

      Reading your position, I think you and the people of the bible belt would get along just fine. Nothing negative against you or them is meant or implied in any way. While I may not agree on this specific point, you're promoting personal responsibility, which I support completely.

      However, I'm also positive that the people of California and the people of Tennessee have some pretty significant differences of opinion on several legislative topics. There's nothing wrong with either side, the people just need to respect that others may believe differently and not try to force it down each others throats.

      If more laws were handled at city and state levels and fewer at federal levels, the discussion could be a lot more rational. i.e., there are people who use marijuana recreationally and there are people who carry loaded guns in public. Both of these groups are generally not going around hurting anyone, so I don't have a problem with either of them. However, those should remain two separate groups and it seems reasonable for people to choose one or the other, not both, just like we do with alcohol today.

      The people who are bringing pot from Colorado into the neighboring states are committing a handful of crimes. Those states could pass laws requiring high restitution fees for those crimes to support the increased enforcement costs. Or they could decriminalize or legalize it. Each state should make their own choices and deal with enforcement accordingly. If it's not cost effective to prosecute people who have small amounts of pot and those people are generally not hurting anyone, a good business decision is to look the other way, just like with the other hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that are selectively enforced today.

    7. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Blaming dispensaries for robbery is like blaming a woman's attire for her being raped. From the same article you linked:

      Because marijuana remains banned by Congress, banks and security firms deny services to most dispensaries. That leaves them cash-based and vulnerable, a magnet for criminals who like the idea of unguarded counting rooms and shelves lined with lucrative horticulture.

      THIS is the problem. It needs to be made totally legal, so we can end this dangerous nonsense.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business by CaptainLard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.

      True, that's why the fundamental reason for legalizing marijuana should be: "Its safe for society at large and the people want it so"

      Taxes are just a happy side effect.

  4. Dry Counties? by jeillah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this any different than counties that don't allow the sale of alcohol adjacent to counties that do? Do the dry counties sue the wet counties because they have to be on the lookout for drunk drivers on their borders? Looks like a way to get some attention or maybe some cash to me...

    1. Re:Dry Counties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm posting anonymously on purpose. I work in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and in my profession need to work with various law enforcement agencies. What they have been telling me is that since Colorado legalized pot, they have seen a huge increase in people bringing pot into the state. That is the difference from a dry to wet county. Those counties have existed for some time and police are accustomed to dealing with it. At least in Nebraska, the police reports I've seen show quite a large increase in the number of people trafficking pot within the state.

      I spoke with one officer a couple of weeks ago and he said to me, "I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go. I would also estimate that probably 70 percent of the folks I know in the area are against legalization.

      Now, the folks they are stopping are being stopped for other things first, such as speeding. These folks also aren't bringing back a little for themselves. They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale. I know of one stop earlier this year near Kimball, Nebraska of folks that were trying to take pot back to Minnesota to sell. They were originally stopped for speeding.

      Also in western Nebraska is the Wing Drug Task Force. Think of what their sole existence is for. We have a problem with meth in western Nebraska. There's lots of wide open spaces here, so a meth lab is easy to hide, yet I always read more about pot busts than meth with the task force.

      We also have police officers who do outreaches to the schools. They talk about railroad safety (because kids still think they can beat the trains) and not doing drugs. While all drugs are covered in their talks to students, meth and pot are the main focus.They tell the kids about these big studies that tell how bad pot is and then detail the awful things pot does to you.

      I personally wish Nebraska would just legalize pot, but I'm pretty sure the state government wants the title of "last state to legalize pot."

    2. Re:Dry Counties? by Molt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you misread slightly, they said it was like 'dry counties' not 'dry countries' - as in a county in a US state where alcohol is prohibited, and which will often border another county in the same state where alcohol is freely available.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    3. Re:Dry Counties? by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.

      But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.

    4. Re:Dry Counties? by slaughts · · Score: 3, Funny

      What county has alcohol freely available? I need to move there...

  5. Really? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sounds like the cops have nothing better to do that waste time on pot arrests. They just want money from taxes on pot without having to collect it themselves

  6. Re:Yup. by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Informative

    Same thing happened when they outlawed dancing.

    I thought you were joking, but its true.

  7. Arrest increase because they're looking for it? by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Chappell, NE is a don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it town of 929 on I-80 between North Platte, NE and Cheyenne, Wyoming. A 400% increase in felony drug arrests sounds like a lot, but how many felony drug arrests could there ever have been in a town of 929? Did we go from 1 to 4?

    I also wonder how many shitkicker rural sheriffs in neighboring states went on full batshit alert once Colorado legalized it and began pulling over every car they could with out of state license plates coming from Colorado, knowing that they would hit paydirt on at least some of them? You can pretty easily create your own crisis if you start looking for it.

    To be fair to the sheriffs, I don't doubt there is some increased amount of pot leaving Colorado -- it's a tourist destination even without pot and it wouldn't surprise me at all if people who go there for other reasons (like skiing or other outdoor activities) decide to bring some home.

    It also wouldn't surprise me if some people went there specifically to bring some home, although from what I've been told the retail pricing isn't all that competitive on a dollar basis with black market pot and the economics of driving cross-country to pick up a couple of ounces of weed don't seem to lend themselves to a lot of people deciding to make that trip.

    I don't think you can factor in any kind of organized criminal enterprises into these complaints -- that was a "problem" *before* it was legalized. Bitching about it now because you're frothed up about pot legalization and seeing it everywhere you look just seems paranoid.

    1. Re:Arrest increase because they're looking for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I also wonder how many shitkicker rural sheriffs in neighboring states went on full batshit alert once Colorado legalized it and began pulling over every car they could with out of state license plates coming from Colorado, knowing that they would hit paydirt on at least some of them? You can pretty easily create your own crisis if you start looking for it.

      As someone with several friends in Colorado who frequently leave the state by car I'm gonna go by what they've told me which is that since day one of legal cannabis in Colorado cops in neighboring states have pretty much been camped out at the state line stopping cars for pretty much no reason at all ("You were going 3 mph over the limit, DO YOU HAVE ANY DRUGS IN THE VEHICLE?").

  8. Re:Hope they win this case. by swb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I kind of doubt it. States enjoy sovereign immunity thanks to the 11th Amendment and generally can't be sued by other states.

    Without this, you would have all manner of lawsuits about neighboring states tax laws, liquor and cigarette control regimes, abortion, etc. Bigger states could dominate smaller states via sheer resources.

  9. Re:10th amendment by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes. And why did alcohol prohibition require a Constitutional amendment, but not marijuana prohibition? The answer is, during alcohol prohibition, the constitution was being followed. Under marijuana prohibition, they wiped their asses with the Constitution.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  10. good luck with that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/department-justice-congress-war-medical-marijuana
    The $1.1 trillion federal spending bill approved by the Senate on Saturday has effectively ended the longstanding federal war on medical marijuana. An amendment to the bill blocks the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries or patients that abide by state laws.

  11. Dear Nebraska and Oklahoma.... by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fuck off losers

  12. Commerce clause abuse by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The stupid thing is: it may well work. The federal government regularly twists the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition. The most egregious case, the one that really set the ball rolling, was the one where the federal government claimed the right to regulate farmers feeding their own grain to their own livestock. Why? Because that meant that they bought less grain from elsewhere, some of which might, potentially come from out of state. Hence, the Commerce Clause allowed the regulation.

    Given that sort of precedent, the federal government can justify essentially any regulation that it wants. Certainly including telling Colorado that it's state-wide laws are invalid, because they happen to indirectly affect neighboring states.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  13. Re:Hope they win this case. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The second amendment might apply to all Americans. But, on the ground, the reality is, it applies only to White Americans. Black/brown/yellow Americans with guns, even toy guns are being shot at sight by police. White guys with long guns get deferential treatment from police. Blacks kids with toy guns get shot within seconds.

    None of the gun rights guys are standing up for the blacks who were shot merely because they had real or toy guns with them. I am sure there will be tons of comments demonizing the dead victims. Will NRA stand up for the blacks to own guns for self protection and to fight against the tyranny of the police?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. the REAL solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    strip the DEA of scheduling authority!

    here's a simple thought experiment:

    you just awoke from a 50 year coma and in playing around with this new-fangled interweb thingy you learn that final authority over the legality of a given substance rests NOT with the FDA (an army of PhDs) or the AMA (an army of MDs) but with this new agency called the "DEA" - a bunch of frakin' COPS! "wait? say that again?!?" you say "a bunch of COPS who know as much about chemistry, biology & medicine as my dead cat have VETO POWER over armies of MDs & PhDs on the legality of ingesting a given chemical?!? what rocket surgeon came up with that bright idea?!?"

    we need to abolish the DEA not just b/c we happen to disagree with them on THC (and MDMA, etc) but b/c the basic model is IDIOTIC!!!

    1. Re:the REAL solution: by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      DEA has "emergency scheduling" powers, its how they went after bath salts and legal marijuana alternatives over the past decade

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  15. Why not a purge? by Carnivore24 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Make all drugs legal for 1 month out of every year. That way Darwin comes in and filters through all the idiots who can't control themselves. By the end of the month everyone who practices personal responsibility and respect continue contributing to the normal human gene pool. It it's a hit expand it to 2-3 months a year.

  16. WTF happended to "small gubmint and freedom fries" by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines

    Seriously, wtf. Oklahoma is way up there among the meth'iest states in the Union, and in Nebraska, LEO's report 1 meth lab incident per 200K people (compared to 1 incident per 376K people in Colorado.) Meth is far more dangerous than pot, I would think these two states should get their shit together before trying to drag another state to federal court.

    Furthermore, Colorado is doing far better in almost all indicators than these two states. Not because of pot legalization obviously, but because of a variety of reasons (many of them social).

    So, Oklahoma and Nebraska, butt off. Get your shit together. Then worry about legal consequences, if any, that you might be experiencing because Coloradoans are baking brownies the type your granny used to eat back in Woodstock (yes, either she did that there or in a barn, get over it.)

  17. astroturf by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As you can see, the moderation converged on a more proper +5 Insightful

      I've read the post carefully and it doesn't qualify as Flamebait IMHO. It states a controversial political opinion and thus invites a discussion, which may lead to flamage, but does not itself lead with a flame.

    So this looks like someone who doesn't like the position trying to suppress it, by hitting it with the most plausible -1, in the hope that one more like-minded person will have mod points and get it suppressed before very many people see it. That works for "politically incorrect" subjects (such as criticisms of the "heat death of the Earth, everybody panic and suppress technology" interpretation of climate data), where a crowd of like-minded free speech haters are ready to suppress opposing opinions. But pro-pot doesn't appear to attract that much system-gaming opposition.

    Right now it only takes two downmods to hide a non-anonymous itme. It seems to me that we have enough people willing to moderate that it's time to scale up the mod system, so a small astroturf operation can't shut down debate. Say: double it: Mods get 10 points, -2 hides, non-anynomous starts at +2, high-karma at +4, doulble everybody's current karma and readjust the cutpoints for bonuses, caps, and the like. That would mean it would take two moderators to suppress a anonymous post and four for authors willing to risk reputation. (It would also mean more work for those who are willing to moderate - but they might be more willing to spend a point if they had more to spend.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  18. Re:Yup. by Meneth · · Score: 3, Informative

    That People article was written in 1980, and the makers of Footloose did read it. See wikipedia.

  19. On paper, sure. But in reality the DEA makes law. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Going back at least as far as the 1980s, the DEA has used their "emergency scheduling" powers to ban various substances by fiat.

    Drugs like MDMA, GHB, "bath salts", and various synthetic cannabinoids were all summarily placed in Schedule I by unelected DEA bureaucrats. All they have to do is wave their pen, and any substance they want to ban is made illegal.

    Yes, such actions are theoretically open to review by congress, but in reality Congress has never denied any DEA action of this nature, and simply rubber stamps whatever the DEA does.

    So the DEA has the ability to CREATE drug laws, as well as ENFORCE them.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org