Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chompalot, Jan 16, 2014.
Of course, they do. And most people overestimate their capacity, especially men.
everyone that is against legalization goes straight to the "stoner" as an example. It could be true but in my experience every person that I know that smokes pot is a successful person. They have jobs, several run their own businesses and a few would be considered millionaires. These are friends, acquaintances and clients whose ages go from the mid 30's into the 70's. I have known more people whose lives were negatively impacted more by alcohol then weed.
There are more people who have been negatively impacted by alcohol than weed because more people have tried alcohol than weed. Part of the reason for this is that weed is illegal.
Do you know a lot of unsuccessful people? If all the people you know are successful, then there is a good chance that all the pot-smokers you know are successful. I'm fairly certain there are unsuccessful pot-smokers out there. Otherwise, the government has been holding back a dirty secret: that smoking pot is the most effective way of becoming successful. "I've tried everything, but I can't get this business model to work." "Have you tried smoking pot?"
Why wouldn't the jobless people just continue buying their marijuana on the black market? If the price goes up 400% as you claim, then the black market isn't going anywhere.
btw, the writers of Washington's legal marijuana law realized they might have to undercut black market prices, and put language in the initiative to help that happen. Basically if their sales suck, and the black market is thriving, they'll lower prices. They want the tax dollars
Text of Washington I-502
Sec. 10. The state liquor control board, subject to the provisions of this act, must adopt rules by December 1, 2013, that establish the procedures and criteria necessary to implement the following:
(c) Economies of scale, and their impact on licensees' ability to both comply with regulatory requirements and undercut illegal market prices;
(5) The state liquor control board shall regularly review the tax
levels established under this section and make recommendations to the
legislature as appropriate regarding adjustments that would further
the goal of discouraging use while undercutting illegal market prices.
No. Absolutely incorrect.
Fact. You can literally drink yourself to death.
Fact. You cannot smoke yourself to death with pot (smoke inhalation aside).
Bottom line is this. You can only get so stoned. Say you smoke a joint by yourself, and maybe another. That's pretty much it (and most would smoke only part of one for personal use). After that, you cannot get any more intoxicated.
I'm not suggesting you smoke pot, but you may want to speak with some people who do before you comment as your facts and presumptions in this case could not be more off base.
It doesn't change my argument that we have more problems with alcohol because the majority of the population has tried (and routinely uses) alcohol. As soon as pot becomes legal and the numbers for usage increase, we will see the same problems (driving under the influence, etc.).
No you won't.
1. You'll probably see a decrease in usage overall. That is, unless the US is different than every other country that has legalized. Granted, there will be an initial spike, a honeymoon phase if you will, that that will be over pretty quick. As I said before, I'd bet anything usage in CO will be lower in 10 years than it was 1 year prior to legalization.
2. Alcohol is far more intoxicating, dangerous to the body, etc. Pot may not be good for the lungs (if smoked) and may lead to other problems, but I does not even come close to doing the damage alcohol does.
3. I've never seen a study, but again would bet anything that the effects of pot vs. alcohol on driving are exponentially less. I wouldn't recommend driving while using either, but not comparable in terms of intoxication.
Look, I get it. You have an image in your head of the pot smoker and you don't like him and thus don't like pot. But your facts simply could not be more incorrect.
Sorry I'm late coming to this thread but a few points to make on this post:
1) It's a constitutional amendment, not a referendum.
2) The use of constitutional amendments to get people out to vote was most recently (prior to this election) done by the right, which attempted to amend the state constitution to include an "anti-Obamacare" amendment. Of course, they knew it had no effect whatsoever if the Supreme Court upheld the ACA under the Supremacy Clause. However, the real goal was to get hard right voters to the polls, so that didn't matter.
That being said, I think the amendment is a bad idea and, if it makes it onto the ballot, I plan to vote against it.
My attorneys son is in the business in Michigan and can't find a bank to open up a business account since banks are federally chartered and federally pot illegal.
On a side note can you imagine the Swamp full of stoners? Sell a lot more hotdogs but we'd lose the noise advantage. Not sure if the "wave" would complete the "circle" (which would be a good thing).
Why is it a bad idea?
Cops need the WOD money and the low-hanging fruit to justify it?
It's disingenuous (nose in the tent for overall legalization)?
Two wrongs (alcohol AND Pot legal) don't make a right?
Don't kid yourself. High percentage already are doing both. Especially on the loud (East) side of the stadium.
Is pot "blue" in Ky?
The language of the amendment does not contain sufficient limitations to avoid "pill mill" type doctors. In the absence of additional institutional controls than those that presently exist in the language, I will be voting against it.
The War on Drugs will continue as long as there are illegal drugs: cocaine, crystal meth, heroine, whatever. It's unlikely that we legalize everything.
Most of them don't smoke pot during the game.
14 docs provided approximately 80% of the MMJ cards in Colorado. Most of them already had some kind of sanction against their licenses prior to their involvement with MMJ and at least one was busted for selling (more than weed) through his office or in the parking lot. I'm not a marijuana advocate, but I am a libertarian. I think regulated legal retail sales make more sense than the farcical intermediate MMJ step.
I find your reasoning to be a bit shaky with respect to pot. Pot is not like hydrocodone or other narcotics.
I don't know what the language proposed there is, but here, the MMJ law was written that the doctor recommending the card had to have a bona fide relationship with the patient. As it played out, bona fide usually meant they could come up with $250 and find the doctor's office and fill out a one page form.
Then your reasoning is not for medial marijuana, it is for legalizing marijuana. If it is for medical purposes only, then it needs sufficient institutional controls in order to avoid it being dispensed by doctors for non-intended purposes, much like many narcotics presently. In the absence of that, which is not presently in the language of the amendment, I would not consider voting for it and plan to vote against it.
Just before. . . And back in the goood ole days, at halftime.