By Clare Kim
Colorado made history Tuesday when Governor John Hickenlooper signed six bills into law that will govern the cultivation, sale, and taxation of recreational marijuana, creating the first legal framework in the U.S. for recreational marijuana use.
Last November, Coloradans voted to approve a constitutional amendment on recreational marijuana. The measure, Amendment 64, will allow Colorado adults–21 and older–to purchase up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational use from specialty marijuana dispensaries (which could open as soon as January) and to grow up to six marijuana plants–with only three flowering at a given time–in their homes.
Video surveillance of pot growing will become established by an agency that will oversee seed-to-sale tracking next year.
The measure also limits possession up to an ounce for personal use. And selling marijuana without a license, purchasing marijuana from a party who is not licensed as well as public use of marijuana will remain illegal.
For the first few months, Colorado’s marijuana industry be restricted to individuals and shops licensed to sell or produce medical marijuana. Licenses will be granted only to residents of two years, and investors will also need to meet the residency requirements.
In May 2013, Fincher argued for large cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, while also advocating an increase in agricultural subsidies. Fincher, who owns a farm, has received over $3.5 million in agricultural subsidies from the federal government. Critics accused Fincher of hypocrisy.
By Collier Meyerson
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial decision to uphold the sampling of some suspected criminals’ DNA, a practice at least 26 states have already implemented. In a 5-4 ruling, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia sided with the liberal justices and wrote the dissenting opinion, citing indiscriminate search as a concern:
“Searching every lawfully stopped car…might turn up information about unsolved crimes the driver had committed, but no one would say that such a search was aimed at ‘identifying’ him, and no court would hold such a search lawful.”
The case has sparked a robust dialogue surrounding a suspected criminal’s right to privacy. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Dissenters of the decision believe that without a warrant, DNA sampling breaches an individual’s rights to privacy.
On All In with Chris Hayes Monday, attorney Barry Scheck sided with Scalia’s emphasis on privacy rights for Americans. Scheck, founder of The Innocence Project, an organization that helps prisoners prove their innocence through DNA testing, explained after the show why he falls on the side of the Supreme Court. Considering Scheck’s life work in exonerating prisoners, what makes him disagree with this use of the practice? Check out the video to find out his answer.
MAKE A DIFFERENCE TODAY!