doctorow at January 24th, 2014 16:03 — #1
therizz at January 24th, 2014 17:13 — #2
Hey, the fact that Texas of all places is seeing that marijuana possession shouldn't be considered a major crime is more amazing to me than CO / WA legalizing it. The decriminalization in TX will probably lead to decriminalization elsewhere, and when the Reefer Madness fails to occur, and the benefits of emptier jails is realized, full legalization (and taxation) will be just around the corner.
cris_overlord at January 24th, 2014 18:20 — #3
Perry's the lamest of the lame ducks, once we get Wendy Davis elected to replaced his ass, all his opinions will become moot, thank FSM.
also...I'd really like to study the wording of any "decriminalization" Perry actually attempts (curious how he would do that, given how limited the Governors powers are in Texas, and how the state constitution requires laws be adopted)... as I'd wager it would have MASSIVE holes in it that allow local municipalities to create their own exemptions.
EDIT: also... two more questions
1. I thought "DAVOS" had become little more than a collection of big monied irrelevancy?
2. given what it costs to attend Davos...who coughed up Perry's fees? cuz if it was my state tax dollars...I'm going to be pissed.
duncancreamer at January 24th, 2014 19:05 — #4
cacafuego at January 24th, 2014 19:18 — #5
I don't get it; how does "endorses" = "moots"?
aman4allsaisons at January 24th, 2014 19:35 — #6
In the UK, "moot" mean to bring to the table, to propose.
This is almost the exact opposite of its meaning in the US which is essentially "irrelevant."
To be extra annoying, mix the two usages. "I believe Rick Perry's mooting of marijuana decriminalization is essentially a moot point because of Texas rednecks."
cris_overlord at January 24th, 2014 19:47 — #7
so...when law school students practice "moot court", which definition of moot are they using? the USA or UK ?
hallam at January 24th, 2014 20:04 — #8
I think we are seeing a political landslip here. Perry isn't running for Governor again and he has virtually zero chance at the Presidency (though he might be the GOP nominee if he runs). Obama isn't running for anything again either. So they can both take a rational position on pot without risk.
But the more important thing is that it gives other pols cover. From Rick Perry to Barack Obama is a pretty broad chunk of the political spectrum. The only significant part of the spectrum left out is to Obama's left and those folk are not the holdouts.
A part of the explanation for this sudden shift is surely the fact that marriage equality shifted so suddenly. Pols who were late to that party may want to get out ahead on pot. The costs of keeping pot illegal are huge and mostly fall on state governments. California could save hundreds of millions a year by releasing inmates held on pot charges. They can make more from taxing weed.
I think Obama's statement is very significant because he is very rarely a political trailbreaker and almost never since becoming president. He is a very astute politician and he does not start quixotic fights he can't win. The fact that he has waded into the pot issue is a big sign that he expects movement to happen.
It could be a problem for the GOP's presidential hopes as well. Potheads are not going to vote for a social conservative who is pledging to take their weed away.
ldobe at January 24th, 2014 20:55 — #9
All joking aside though, it makes sense that the GOP is trying to play catchup in the arena of reasonable action in the war on drugs (which also seems to have become the war on drug research.)
hurleyef at January 24th, 2014 23:42 — #10
Sigh, english. Sigh.
euansmith at January 25th, 2014 05:09 — #11
That seems a bit harsh... oh, wait... you meant it means "irrelevant" in American
euansmith at January 25th, 2014 05:12 — #12
I thought the object of the Criminal Justice System in the US of A was to generate income for the private prison sector. How does decriminalising pot help?
steve_nordquist at January 25th, 2014 06:31 — #13
Yes, so if you wanted to make a giant decrepit memorial husk to Rick (because Austin's under UN rule anyhow,) you could let cities make an insurance point system affecting both healthcare and motor travel and involving funny games at the point of service. Davos the conference has a point system, but seems distinct; news organizations that send for coverage are looking more irrelevant?
steve_nordquist at January 25th, 2014 06:48 — #14
Chupacabra gang baby interdiction steps with a lawyer unicorn chaser.
aman4allsaisons at January 25th, 2014 09:03 — #15
The term derives from Anglo-Saxon times, when a moot (gmot or emot) was a gathering of prominent men in a locality to discuss matters of local importance.
Like the Ent Moot in Lord of the Rings.
On a related note, Moot Court was one of my favorite college activities.
beep54orama at January 26th, 2014 02:16 — #16
Considering that we've been paying $10,000 per month to house Guv Goodhair in an apartment all these years since the Mansion burned down, Davos would probably be just another drop out of the tax bucket.
emacsomancer at January 26th, 2014 10:57 — #17
What are "emots" and "gmots"? Both of those look distinctly non-Anglo-Saxon.
aliceweir at January 26th, 2014 15:37 — #18
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...and yet, perfectly delightful.
Seems ironically appropriate that Perry, a ginormous dickweed, should espouse decriminalization of miniscule amounts of regular weed for the masses.
And so finally, one can at least take some small comfort in a warm bowl of mother nature as we morn the loss of our reproductive rights.
So thoughtful. He's a good ol' boy, for sure. I feel all better about it now. Don't you?
ignatius at January 26th, 2014 16:32 — #19
It doesn't but as hallam pointed out, both Perry and Obama can say what they like now since they're not running for re-election.
Moreover, if Perry did decide to run for president without having endorsed legal cannabis, he's going to run into constituencies abandoning ship for equally conservative Libertarians who happen to be pro-pot.
aliceweir at January 26th, 2014 17:24 — #20
Warning, warning - brain fart in progress.
Does it not seem to anybody else that, instead of these wordy prostitutes, we should just vote issues, period. Then, all we do is hire somebody to do that. No lame surveys, no ridiclous marketing-as-candidates, with people paid to guess what we all want, so they can in turn guess how to sell themselves as that . California does a slightly better job than most states of putting measures up for open voting by the public - but not by a whole lot. Still - the general idea is there.
If the offices simply must be elected, then let them have resume wars instead of propaganda wars. That would actually be fun, and we'd likely get better work out of them in the end. I mean, in any company, the company decides what business it is in, and THEN they hire people to do THAT. So why do we keep hiring people, and then they just do whatever they damned well please? Makes no sense.
next page →