|
oh my god I agree with fishmech
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Brave New World posted:How is this discussion about dry counties in hick states germane to the big picture? Well when you define "hick states" as all but about five of them I can see why they would matter in the big picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well when you define "hick states" as all but about five of them I can see why they would matter in the big picture. reminder that non-hick states are just non-hick cities surrounded by hick counties
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
On a whole I'd say Washington and Colorado are extremely hick. Washington probably more than Colorado judging by my experiences in eastern WA. Hicks like to get stoned, too. Religious hicks, now.... that's another thing altogether. But hell, we're almost at half of the states in the country having some form of mmj or legalization. It's inevitable. If Mississippi or Florida or whatever doesn't want to legalize (which I wouldn't be surprised by at all), I really couldn't care. Those places are so economically depressed, or otherwise lovely, that no sensible person wants to visit them anyway. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:On a whole I'd say Washington and Colorado are extremely hick. Washington probably more than Colorado judging by my experiences in eastern WA. Is eastern WA the only part you've been to? The state doesn't really listen to the people east of the Cascades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Is eastern WA the only part you've been to? The state doesn't really listen to the people east of the Cascades. Isn't that because that's like 20% of the population?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:On a whole I'd say Washington and Colorado are extremely hick. Washington probably more than Colorado judging by my experiences in eastern WA. As a Florida resident, I blame The northern portion of Florida which is also the most conservative. The major political base sits inside there and is pretty much at the opposite end of the state where the most cash flows (and where most of the crazy poo poo in this state goes down). Given that Miami is a major port, that would definitely factor into decision making about marijuana and other drugs (for good and for bad).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Is eastern WA the only part you've been to? The state doesn't really listen to the people east of the Cascades. Actually it doesn't listen to people outside of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, in general. In determining whether or not Washington is a "hick state" (it is), it'd be more useful to find a more polarizing measure than legalizing weed. It's not as cut and dry as "Washington isn't filled with hicks," so much as the vast majority of the voting population resides in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap counties. numbers: http://seattletimes.com/flatpages/politics/2012-washington-election-results.html Has there been any news on whether Washington is still on track for December 6th? I keep waiting to hear bad news.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
krispykremessuck posted:Has there been any news on whether Washington is still on track for December 6th? I keep waiting to hear bad news. The liquor control board accepted the rules a couple weeks ago. I think they start accepting permits sometime in November, and expect stores to open up in May or June.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:
This sounds a lot like what is happening with synthetic cannabinoids in a sense. In the same vein it's also opening up potentially new effects and side effects so compounds which may have previously been consumed in miniscule amounts. Cannabis is somewhat interesting here because it's a plant not a drug, per se
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:This is an interesting point because up until now "strains" have all been about what is produced naturally. If a company grows and isolates every cannabinoid it opens up an entirely untapped psychedelic market for non-natural mixtures of each cannabinioid. Cannabinoid/terpenoid synergism is a very interesting area of pharmacology. There are probably only half a dozen people on the planet qualified to talk about it. Here's one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01238.x/pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Cannabinoid/terpenoid synergism is a very interesting area of pharmacology. There are probably only half a dozen people on the planet qualified to talk about it. Here's one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01238.x/pdf Thanks for this! It's honestly pretty amazing given how far we've come in other areas of science/pharmacology that we still basically only know "THC makes you high, these other compounds may have other effects."
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo about dry counties? The goal of legalizing/ending prohibition is not just so you can smoke weed erryday and do it cheaper and better than ever before, it's also about keeping the police from arresting thousands and thousands of people over drug possession. That's the key thing here, not every state has to sell it, but every state needs to stop incarcerating for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
quote:Has there been any news on whether Washington is still on track for December 6th? I keep waiting to hear bad news. The bad news: The state wants medical dispensaries and people who grow a plant in their back yard shut down, since they can't tax those things. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Washington-state-agencies-recommend-reining-in-medical-pot-228704151.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Thanks for this! It's honestly pretty amazing given how far we've come in other areas of science/pharmacology that we still basically only know "THC makes you high, these other compounds may have other effects." This is what keeping a drug illegal does to research
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:That's the key thing here, not every state has to sell it, but every state needs to stop incarcerating for it. States can make up their own drug laws. If Mississippi wants to ban weed and keep arresting users even though it's legal federally they can do that. It would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to pass a law that barred states from passing a law of their own. The absolute most they could do is tie some funding to decriminalization, and you'd be crazy to think that politicians would want to be seen forcing weed on everyone over the objection of voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:
Really? Mississippi I won't argue with you on. But Florida? No sensible person wants to visit there? Tourism is one of the biggest industries in Florida. There's Disney world, Busch gardens, Universal studios, Miami, Key West, and hundreds of miles of beaches. I know people who to to Florida every year for vacations. Now weed tourism? No of course not but prescription pills and Cocaine? Oh you better believe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Florida is the classic, love to visit would never want to live there place. Unless you like strip clubs, cause goddamn there is a lot of loving strip clubs there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:Unless you like strip clubs, cause goddamn there is a lot of loving strip clubs there. Why else would the GOP pick Tampa Bay for their presidential convention?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Is eastern WA the only part you've been to? The state doesn't really listen to the people east of the Cascades. There are a ton of hick parts of Washington on the west side of the Cascades. Outside of Bellingham and (maybe) Lynden, Whatcom county is pretty hick. Maple Valley area, Enumclaw, the outskirts of Auburn, Covington (at least it used to be). I feel pretty comfortable calling Washington a hick state with a stretch of the I-5 corridor being an exception.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:There are a ton of hick parts of Washington on the west side of the Cascades. Outside of Bellingham and (maybe) Lynden, Whatcom county is pretty hick. Maple Valley area, Enumclaw, the outskirts of Auburn, Covington (at least it used to be). I feel pretty comfortable calling Washington a hick state with a stretch of the I-5 corridor being an exception. Yeah having red hee haw rural areas is pretty much universal even for solid blue states:  Of course the main population centers are blue, which means the lower population rural counties get easily cancelled out in a presidential race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah having red hee haw rural areas is pretty much universal even for solid blue states: Just as a reminder most of those blue counties still had at least 40% of the vote go for Romney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:States can make up their own drug laws. If Mississippi wants to ban weed and keep arresting users even though it's legal federally they can do that. You could make it unconstitutional to arrest/jail citizens of this country for the crime of an altered state of consciousness. A person is not a criminal because they are high/drunk/tweaking, a person is a criminal if and when they perform criminal acts. To arrest somebody for possessing a plant while not arresting somebody who can possess and carry a deadly and possibly concealed weapon is free from harassment. It's an insane excuse to allow the state to actively violate the rights of its citizens under the guise of law and order and if there's going to be a Federal response to prohibition and the war on drugs, it ought to be something closer to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:You could make it unconstitutional to arrest/jail citizens of this country for the crime of an altered state of consciousness. A person is not a criminal because they are high/drunk/tweaking, a person is a criminal if and when they perform criminal acts. To arrest somebody for possessing a plant while not arresting somebody who can possess and carry a deadly and possibly concealed weapon is free from harassment. Ok, but there's absolutely no chance of that becoming a constitutional amendment any time soon. Plus you're straight up saying drunk driving should no longer be illegal in there, which is dumb as hell. The best you're going to see is weed stop being illegal on the federal level with maybe other "soft drugs" like LSD joining in as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Ok, but there's absolutely no chance of that becoming a constitutional amendment any time soon. Install Windows posted:Plus you're straight up saying drunk driving should no longer be illegal in there, which is dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:Where did he say anything about a constitutional amendment? You can't make something like that unconstitutional without an amendment. Absolutely nothing in the constitution and its current amendments could be construed to support a ruling like that. He said that, because he said "make it unconstitutional to arrest/jail citizens of this country for the crime of an altered state of consciousness". If you have a drunk state of conciousness before or while driving, that's a dui, that's a crime, and a constitutional change preventing that from being a crime makes drunk driving illegal. You're being obtuse by claiming it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:He said that, because he said "make it unconstitutional to arrest/jail citizens of this country for the crime of an altered state of consciousness". If you have a drunk state of conciousness before or while driving, that's a dui, that's a crime, and a constitutional change preventing that from being a crime makes drunk driving illegal. You're being obtuse by claiming it isn't. DUI is an offence because it involves acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death. Just because someone thinks that it should be lawful to alter their state of consciousness however they see fit does not mean they think it should be lawful to act in a negligent way i.e. drive whilst intoxicated. Is 'nitwit' an expression you're familiar with? KingEup fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 13:30
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:You could make it unconstitutional to arrest/jail citizens of this country for the crime of an altered state of consciousness. A person is not a criminal because they are high/drunk/tweaking, a person is a criminal if and when they perform criminal acts. To arrest somebody for possessing a plant while not arresting somebody who can possess and carry a deadly and possibly concealed weapon is free from harassment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
TACD posted:Isn't this effectively the case already? 'Being high' is not a crime in and of itself. There are public intoxication laws but they're usually written like this: quote:A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another. In Texas at least there's also a clause covering future drug legalization: quote:In a prosecution under Section 49.03, 49.04, 49.045, 49.05, 49.06, 49.065, 49.07, or 49.08, the fact that the defendant is or has been entitled to use the alcohol, controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, or other substance is not a defense. computer parts fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
e: nvm
Total Confusion fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:This is what keeping a drug illegal does to research Oh yeah, I mean I understand why we don't really have any info on it. It's just that as a common pharmaceutical substance from antiquity right through to the 1930s, it's absolutely insane that we don't understand the first thing about any of the other cannabinoids. Just shows how far a little bit of FUD and a few well-placed laws can go in making GBS threads all over the advancement of medicine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Oh yeah, I mean I understand why we don't really have any info on it. It's just that as a common pharmaceutical substance from antiquity right through to the 1930s, it's absolutely insane that we don't understand the first thing about any of the other cannabinoids. Just shows how far a little bit of FUD and a few well-placed laws can go in making GBS threads all over the advancement of medicine. Medicos are only just realising this: quote:A paper published today in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience claims that the UN conventions on drugs in the 1960s and 1970s have not only compounded the harms of drugs but also produced the worst censorship of research for over 300 years. They have set back research in key areas such as consciousness by decades and effectively stopped the investigation of promising medical treatments, the researchers say. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_11-6-2013-10-58-52 quote:Drugs prohibition is criminals’ gain, neuroscience’s loss http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2813%2900835-X?large_figure=true If this is actually true, and prohibition has retarded medical advancement, who is going to be held accountable? Lying about the harms of cigarettes cost big tobacco roughly $200 billion. What do you get fined for lying about the benefits of cannabis? Imagine… what happens the moment that the Federal government admits its’ culpability in failing to use the only real standard – science – in determining the validity of maintaining cannabis prohibition. Imagine… after that admission, the resulting tsunami of litigation from every person whose life was destroyed by the policy of cannabis prohibition. This is not idle speculation; you may be assured that such a scenario has been considered by those in power behind the scenes. They know that such an admission is what the forces of prohibition, and the FedGov itself, are terrified of. Millions upon millions of lawsuits, all justly claiming recompense for lives destroyed by government lies…told by government-sanctioned liars. Who KNEW they were lying. The treasury would be drained in a week…or the currency so debauched that the economic system, already teetering on the knife’s-edge, would come crashing down under the weight of hyper-inflated, worthless currency printed to pay out those lawsuits. Edit: I've just inadvertantly convinced myself with 99% certainty that the Feds will not reschedule cannabis. This is going to be grass roots State-by-State combat for my lifetime at least. KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
KingEup posted:DUI is an offence because it involves acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death. Just because someone thinks that it should be lawful to alter their state of consciousness however they see fit does not mean they think it should be lawful to act in a negligent way i.e. drive whilst intoxicated. It's a crime because you're operating with an altered consciousness state under the influence of a drug. Any constitutional change that says having an altered consciousness can never be illegal would on its face say that drunk and intoxicated driving laws can no longer apply. You couldn't make it negligent when the negligent action (being intoxicated) has been made constitutionally a-ok. TACD posted:Isn't this effectively the case already? 'Being high' is not a crime in and of itself. Yeah if you aren't out somewhere, and if you manage to destroy or conceal any associated drugs or paraphernalia you already can't be arrested just for being high/drunk/whatever. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It's a crime because you're operating with an altered consciousness state under the influence of a drug. Any constitutional change that says having an altered consciousness can never be illegal would on its face say that drunk and intoxicated driving laws can no longer apply.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:Drunk driving would be basically no different from shouting fire in a theater, speech is protected by the Constitution, but not speech that endangers people, altered conscious states would be no different. Then in effect that new constitutional provision would do nothing to alter the status quo, making it pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Then in effect that new constitutional provision would do nothing to alter the status quo, making it pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's the point of this post? Maybe the specific wording presented wouldn't alter the status quo (it plainly would because public intoxication laws would fall), but even assuming that's the case it's obvious that we could construct a wording that would alter the status quo. The desired outcome of the proposal is obvious, and since we aren't passing an actual amendment, legal precision isn't helping anything. It looks like this post is just a lame attempt to dodge admitting your post about drunk driving was both dumb and a strawman. It actually isn't obvious at all that any particular wording would change the status quo by all that much in this case, however. I mean, the First Amendment has consistently failed since not long after its passage to protect all political speech, for example, and that's a lot more straightforward. Some sort of amendment to decriminalize all drugs would be a different story of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's the point of this post? Maybe the specific wording presented wouldn't alter the status quo (it plainly would because public intoxication laws would fall), but even assuming that's the case it's obvious that we could construct a wording that would alter the status quo. The desired outcome of the proposal is obvious, and since we aren't passing an actual amendment, legal precision isn't helping anything. It looks like this post is just a lame attempt to dodge admitting your post about drunk driving was both dumb and a strawman. Either the intention is to permanently enshrine the legalness of "altered conciousness" or it does nothing. The thing is that it's already almost never actually against the law to be high, merely against the law to possess the things to make you high, or in some cases against the law to do other things when high. Reading the intent of what he's saying, that we don't do enough to make sure that having altered states of mind is legal, you can only either get: 1) no change at all, yet he implied the he wanted change 2) change by removing things like drunk driving and so on because those are laws specifically about being in an altered state. Keep in mind I'm specifically objecting to what he said: "You could make it unconstitutional to arrest/jail citizens of this country for the crime of an altered state of consciousness."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Reading the intent of what he's saying, that we don't do enough to make sure that having altered states of mind is legal, you can only either get: http://lcb.wa.gov/marijuana/faqs_i-502 eSports Chaebol posted:It actually isn't obvious at all that any particular wording would change the status quo by all that much in this case, however. I mean, the First Amendment has consistently failed since not long after its passage to protect all political speech, for example, and that's a lot more straightforward. Some sort of amendment to decriminalize all drugs would be a different story of course. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
twodot posted:You realize that I only have to find one public intoxication law that doesn't reference danger to disprove this? It happens to be the case that using marijuana in public in Washington is a fine-able offense, normally I would find a better citation than this, but it's clear you are just attempting a dumb derail to distract from the fact your previous derail was even dumber: That is using it actively. If you smoked up in your house and went outside still high you wouldn't be. Well it's sure nice that no one ever claimed the first amendment protected all speech all the time? You're trying to claim I'm derailing when you're pulling that out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 20:45
|
|