2012 Presidential election results are in!

[scythe]

Obama is reelected, two states legalize cannabis, three legalize gay marriage, Todd Akin lost, and the anti-abortion amendment was defeated in Florida.

"And I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.'"

~Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country

[乳头的早餐谷物]

"Federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly."

~Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper

Edit: woah, Hickenlooper, who I quoted just because I liked the line and I needed a quote to use in a send-up of your formatting, was actually a friend of Vonnegut. This is some karass shit.

[Sunset]

Some even more karass shit (okay not so much) is that there's a new lab at my school titled "Vonnegut".

In all seriousness, expected Obama to win. As for the marijuana thing, not really. Always figured California would beat the others to the punch, but I guess not.

[otters~1]

Preliminary reports blame the legion drug dealers in California who voted against taxation.

[Rhekatou]

Too bad in the constitution it says anything not explicitly defined in the Constitution is up to the states. The feds can have their law, but it won't apply here in Washington. I 502 is a step. Maybe the wrong first step, but hey, ganja will be legal in time for college.

[Universezero]

With the legalization of cannabis: does this mean that, in those states, it will be commercially sold, potentially under a brand name?

[aids]

With the legalization of cannabis: does this mean that, in those states, it will be commercially sold, potentially under a brand name?

I don't think so. From here:

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper warned celebrants not to “break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly” as his administration figures out how state residents can buy and sell marijuana without running afoul of federal laws.

Just because the state allows it doesn't mean the country does.

[otters~1]

With the legalization of cannabis: does this mean that, in those states, it will be commercially sold, potentially under a brand name?

Yes.

The amendment would allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of the drug at specially regulated retail stores. Possession would be legal, but not public use.

More or less exactly like alcohol. However, as has been pointed out in this thread, marijuana is not legal federally. What this means is that, ultimately, the issue should go before the Supreme Court. Currently, they would most likely vote 5-4 against. However, this imbalance should change in the next two years (possibly much sooner). Regardless of the outcome of the case, it is extremely important that the fate of marijuana has moved from the legislature to the traditionally more trendsetting courts.

Incidentally,

Adults could grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes. Proponents have said the measure would not only divert profits from dangerous drug cartels to legitimate businesses, it would also generate tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues for state and local governments.

this is true. However,

Opponents say ... that approval would make Colorado a tourist destination for illegal drug dealers. They also say Amendment 64 would lead to greater use of the drug by children, and to more drugged driving.

this is also true. And the people in charge of making this decision at the federal level know both of these arguments back to front. Nothing is assured yet, but from what I understand, for the time being Colorado and Washington should be allowed to roam relatively unfettered.

It took me an incredibly long time to write this post.

[otters~1]

The Atlantic further addresses Uzi's question.

This is about the impact Obama's administration could potentially have on the commercial marijuana industry, and mentions nothing about the courts. Cautiously optimistic.

scythe if you see this I'd like your opinion on the question as well.