Should recreational marijuana use be legal in Iowa?
Related Stories
Marijuana leaf
Voters in Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives Tuesday to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the biggest victory ever for the legalization movement.
“The significance of these events cannot be understated,” said NORML, a pro-legalization organization, in a news release. “Tonight, for the first time in history, two states have legalized and regulated the adult use and sale of cannabis.”
But in many ways, it’s just the beginning of the battle. Marijuana is still illegal in the eyes of the federal government, which overrules states’ rights.
“The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will,” said Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, in a statement. “This is a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don’t break out the Cheetos or goldfish too quickly.”
Should Iowa consider a similar proposal, making marijuana legal for recreational use?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
In this day and age of sensitivity, how would we handle the people who were “busted” just before the law change? Offer financial and/or moral restitution?
Prohibition didn’t work in the early 20th Century, and it’s not working in the early 21st. Time to end the phony war on drugs, at least where marijuana is concerned. It’ll be nice to have hemp back as a commodity crop option, too.
I’m looking forward to seeing the responses of those “conservatives” and TEA party folks who’ve been arguing that “government needs to get off our backs”….and have been arguing for being “tough on crime”. It’s usually fun to watch them jump through hoops looking for loopholes to avoid a paradox.
I think the 4 plus decade war on drugs has done nothing but make the drug dealers richer. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over expecting different results. $40 million a year for what?? It has accomplished nothing. It’s time to change something.
Absolutely it should be legalized.
Drugwarfacts.org has a compilation of the science surrounding this issue. The money wasted by this puritan ideal is astounding.
Not to mention- once pot becomes legal–our farmers will have another cash crop in hemp – not pot, as they did before prohibition. Right now hemp is being used as a renewable crop source to make everything from paper, strand fiber for car parts, resins, and cooking oil, to T-shirts. In Canada it is a billion dollar industry- and we don’t allow out farmers to participate in that market – just because. Time to put away the Victorian pipe dream of a sober society. Never has been- never will be.
Yes, it’s time to get rid of hypocritical, antiquated laws that make Marijuana Illegal and Alcohol legal. If you know the history, you know the reasons that it ever became illegal in the first place are, by todays standards, racist and stupid. It is not so much illegal because it is “unsafe” (“smoking” it aside, as smoking anything is unhealthy) so much as it was made illegal because of the part of society that used it was “unseemly”.
Plus, I think it was Daniel Tosh who said that we should make it legal so that Stoner’s never have anything to talk about ever again. And I fully agree.
I would not be a marijuana user, but I have no problem with it being decriminalized. Portugal decriminalized most recreational drugs in 2000 and the 12 year history is impressive. Drug use is down and drug related crime and violence is way down. Further, they are not consuming a large portion of their law enforcement resources on drug related crimes.
Imagine what slick lawyers would do if “weed” were legalized. Anyone busted years prior would have opportunity to sue for unearned wages. Wages that could have been earned if that person didn’t have a drug arrest. Who will pay? Perhaps we can funnel the cost to those who want it legalized?!!
If I were a drug dealer hitting on teenagers, the first words out of my mouth would be, “C’mon, try this, they legalized pot, so what’s the differance with this stuff”
And… this conservative doesn’t want to be on the road with someone stoned any more than with a drunk. Worse yet, I don’t want my family on the road with someone who is stoned. Can we funnel those accidents to those who want pot legalized?!!
Curt, the fear you describe has no legal precedent. We already know from prohibition that your scenario wont happen.
For the survival of the Union I see a much more terrifying attitude and ignorance being presented……..by the Gazette editorial board.
” Marijuana is still illegal in the eyes of the federal government, which overrules states’ rights”
This has no basis in the form of govt we are supposed to be living under. Ask your self exactly why we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?
Now ask yourself why the people are allowing the federal govt to crush their constitutionally protected rights?
In my opinion, the People have willing abdicated their rights to an unaccountable and overreaching judiciary. It is time ask hard questions to our elected representatives and have them explain the ignorant notion that States dont have the RIGHT to legalize pot. What constitutional proviso is being refered to here?
The constitution is not a complicated document. Judges opinions have tortured the intent and text, into unrecognizable legalese (corporations are people) that those trained in the law pretend to understand and perpetuate the carefully crafted narrative that the people are too stupid to govern themselves and only judges are smart enough to divine the truth.
It is time for the people to take back their supremacy in self governance.
“explain the ignorant notion that States dont have the RIGHT to legalize pot. What constitutional proviso is being refered to here?”
Federalist Paper #33 (Hamilton); #44 (Madison)
Constitution Article VI
Supreme Court Decisions:
Ware v Hylton 1796
Martin v Hunter ‘s lessee1816
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Cohens v Virginia 1821
Ableman v Booth 1859
The American Civil War
Amendments XIII, XIX, XV and et cetera
Federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict
Roberta, per usual your total ignorance of the subject exposes you.
What you have done quite unwhittingly is expose the judiciary you find so brilliant, common political hacks. The cases you list dont mean what you think they mean.
From your cite of Cohens v Virginia.
“Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were “absolutely void.”
That is all fine. Unless you want judges to apply the law the same way all the time. If this your legal guiding principle, If this is what you found, a mere mortal without the special powers imbued to judges, why did the Iowa supreme court fail to notice the binding truth about federal supremecy?
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Here we have the direct quote from DOMA, a federal law that trumps state constitutions and state laws……according to your cite.
The rest of your cites dont apply to the federal govt trumping state laws to make Marijuana illegal. Like I said, the dont mean what you think they mean.
The simple test is. if prohibition of alcohol could have been done legislatively…….why wasnt it? If all the precedent means what you think it means (it doesnt) why the constitutional amendment?
Sorry Mr Williamson, DOMA only applies to the federal government–”the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.”
What that means is the federal government does not recognise same sex marriages when it comes to federal benefits such as Social Security or the health and pension benefits that come with federal jobs. DOMA does not apply to the various states or to the private sector.
You really need to come up with better arguments than “people who disagree with you are stupid.” Is it at all possible for you to do that?
No Roberta, your cite says federal law trumps state law. you got it wrong, You also in your list of cites have nothing that is germain to the discussion.
Still also waiting for your explanation of why a constitutional amendment was needed for prohibition of alcohol and not Pot.
Nonsense, There is no cause of action for those who are “busted” prior to legalization.
The idea that legalization will cause a spike in use has been debunked. The Netherlands had a decrease in abuse afterward. Intoxicated driving is charged regardless of the intoxicating substance already, and still will be
The people who use. will keep using. Those who don’t, wont.
All legalization does is stop the government from continuing to lie about the harm caused.
Actually, Mr Roman, what legalization will do will be to stop the needless damage done to people by these ill-considered laws.
Agreed Ms. Bell. I was responding to Curt.
It should also be noted that the black market mark-up caused by prohibition is estimated at 30,000% No prohibition, no profit for the cartels. Makes me wonder how much money the drug cartels funnel into the political coffers of legalization opponents. Once the profit is gone- so are the cartels. They know it.