Anyone think Pot (non-medical) will be legalized in any state in the next five years?

[Logical]

I hear a lot of talk about it but most polls are not very close when real elections are held.

I think it should be legalized. I have never used pot once but think it being illegal is stupid.

I just do not see the USA legalizing it anywhere.

[RagAss]

1. No...not after it failed in California.

[otohara]

2. Colorado is gathering signatures

It will be on ballot next year

[7wo7rees]

6. Colorado will be the first.

[Logical]

11. Wow, did not know that. n-t

[me b zola]

3. We will get in done in the nest 10 years

Here in Oregon, or Cali, Co, or Wa. But we will get it done

[safeinOhio]

4. Legal no.

Decriminalized most likely. Legal to have and use in your home. but, it won't be for sale at the store.

[bemildred]

5. The dam is bust, it's going to happen. nt

[kestrel91316]

7. Not 5. Ten.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Yes, first Colorado, then the rest of the West

The Feds will just reclassify, then the States do as they wish unhindered. I assume you are from the South or Midwest? NY?

[BlueIris]

9. Maybe. Stoned people vote stupider. nt

[Occulus]

18. My observations have always been that cannabis consumption

raises the sensitivity of the consumer's bullshit detector.

I have never been able to 'pull a fast one' on someone high on cannabis. They always seem to see directly through any BS I throw at them, repeatedly.

[immoderate]

22. Does that explain Republicans?

:shrug:

--imm

[Jumping John]

10. NO corporate Pharma will stop it since that is why Obama is busting medicinal marijuana and

The pharma drug cartel has finally produced a non-high marijuana pill.

[former9thward]

12. It has to be legalized at the federal level first.

As long as it is against federal law it will not matter what states do. No business or person would be able to sell it because when they sign their income tax forms they would be admitting to a federal felony.

[sunwyn]

13. It should be legal everywhere but it won't be as long as lawmakers and

politicians are bought by Big Pharma. Marijuana scares the he'll out them and the alcohol lobby.

[provis99]

14. Nope.

[nevergiveup]

15. Ten years but not 5.

[RainDog]

16. I have no idea - things could change quickly - or could stay the same

but the truth right now is that people in states are not going to give in to the feds insistence on two-tier scheduling - one for big pharma and one for a natural plant.

people will simply break the law because the law is stupid. I think that scenario is already at critical mass - tho the pols in the states are not going to push back too hard - the people have just said they are not going to follow a stupid law.

if someone took this to court - how could the DEA justify ANY sentence for someone using mmj when they have marinol listed as a schedule III substance? there is NO science that can back up the reasoning behind such rulings.

so, it only takes a new attn. gen. and a call for a rescheduling hearing to change things overnight - but I doubt that will happen.

however, I think that more and more voters will simply ignore the DEA's scheduling too - and... well, they can't arrest everyone.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. It's been virtually legal in Alaska since 1975

and the Ravin v. State decision which ruled that the very strong privacy clause in our state constitution allows possession in one's home of up to four ounces for personal use. Or 25 growing plants. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravin.htm

The only people who get bothered for pot here are people with obvious commercial grows.


There's an interesting Alaska Law Review article here regarding the history of marijuana laws in Alaska. http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?15+Alaska+L.+Rev.+315 I've personally smoked pot with a member of our state Supreme Court and a member of the state Court of Appeals (which handles our criminal appeals). I don't see things toughening up here anytime soon.

[Logical]

19. Wow, interesting story. Thanks! n-t

[Maru Kitteh]

20. The day after there is a reliable DWB (driving while baked) test - it should be legal everywhere.

If a practical on-site test is developed, there really will be no valid arguments left.

[immoderate]

24. Right after they do it for alcohol.

Valid? Arguments? In the same sentence?

--imm

[Maru Kitteh]

25. That's kinda the point. They have a validated (this has a specific scientific meaning) field test

for alcohol. Validated does not mean flawless or there would be no need for court, nor is any medical test flawless.

A valid field test for active levels of THC can only assist in bringing an end to blanket criminalization.

[immoderate]

26. AFAIK you can pass the field test, and still be arrested based on blood alcohol.

And I wouldn't want the legality of a substance to hang on whether it could be properly detected in drivers.

It's not analogous to alcohol.


--imm

[pitohui]

21. obviously a lot of folks think so

there is a war going on among the cartels or haven't you noticed? the family that cuts off the most heads is going to be a billionaire when pot is legalized...and they probably have better information than we do, this isn't a war over scraps in a backyard, this a war over who will be the first CEO of jack daniel's after prohibition

it has already been legalized in small private use countries in several countries inc. bolivia and colombia

we can't be far behind, there are billions to be made and it has become clear that "positioning" is going on to see who gets those billions or do you really think mexican billionaires are cutting off heads because they're bored and watch too much teevee?

[supernova]

23. Decriminalized certainly

on the grounds of the economic and legal negative impacts currently. I don't know about legalization.