|
CheesyDog posted:Hmm, that seems a bit inconsistent with: Why did you cut off the second half of my quote? Why didn't you post the whole thing? Oh wait I think I know why. quote:Thankfully the facts are still on my side (for now anyways) since during Obama's first 4 years in office there were 8 times as many federal raids on medical marijuana facilities as there were in all 8 years of Bush. I think it's safe to say Obama's comments were just for show since his actions on this position haven't changed a bit (thank god). Yep, nothing inconsistent about my support of Obama. Nice try though.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
District Selectman posted:an edibles food truck?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:No way that would be legal currently. Marijuana sales are strictly regulated and no one can even apply to be a retail marijuana seller unless they are already a MMJ dispensary owner. Add on top of that that you'd be basically selling on the street where currently the marijuana must be behind locked doors and customers must have their IDs checked before being allowed inside. But hypothetically, if I knew someone who owned a dispensary...because I have a few friend of a friend type connections out there to various dispensaries. There are after hours "clubs" here in Philly that let you drink past the standard 2AM closing time. They charge a fee to become "private members", and that somehow makes it legal. That's interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:But hypothetically, if I knew someone who owned a dispensary...because I have a few friend of a friend type connections out there to various dispensaries. there are no "clubs" because there isn't any money in it. you can't consume on the premises of anywhere that sells marijuana and you can't smoke inside bars under the clean indoor air act. cigar bars and hookah lounges have an exemption that isn't available to marijuana smoke. also, they are able to sell customers the thing that they are smoking. we have enough idiots with half-assed "weed business" ideas in this state already. i recommend you stick with your day job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:End of the day, the law is a conglomeration of many rules by many people. It's never going to be wholly consistent, and neither is the process of reforming it. Ultimately, whether or not one supports a given law is a moral, and therefore an individual, decision. Totally this, I know my support for laws is based on a moral judgement rather than whether I prefer Team State or Team Fed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Why did you cut off the second half of my quote? Why didn't you post the whole thing? So, you're saying that rhetoric is less important to you than the end result, even if that rhetoric is at odds with your other stated beliefs. Oddly, that seems inconsistent with your criticisms in this thread!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You should start an emergency service that people can call when they get too high and would otherwise call a real emergency service. You could have a car with a siren and bring people ice water and cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Is there a legalization thread in GBS 1.XX or TCC that i can follow? On this subject i think i prefer a forum where everyone is in agreement. Its like debating the pros and cons of interracial marriage legalization.
MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You should start an emergency service that people can call when they get too high and would otherwise call a real emergency service. You could have a car with a siren and bring people ice water and cartoons. I would totally pay for someone to come comfort me with oreos, cartoons, ice water, and repeated "you're ok, you just got way too high" when I get too high for my own good
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Is there a legalization thread in GBS 1.XX or TCC that i can follow? On this subject i think i prefer a forum where everyone is in agreement. Its like debating the pros and cons of interracial marriage legalization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:The only people who are against marijuana legalization in this thread are trolling. I am against it. If by against you mean I suck it through a bong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Moktaro posted:Totally this, I know my support for laws is based on a moral judgement rather than whether I prefer Team State or Team Fed. Yeah but we couldn't program your "moral judgments" into the supercomputer which administers the Martian Federation, so
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Megaman posted:I would totally pay for someone to come comfort me with oreos, cartoons, ice water, and repeated "you're ok, you just got way too high" when I get too high for my own good Do people still do that? Like it seems like after you've gotten high a few times you kind of figure that poo poo out. If you are still getting "too high" you may want to take a break.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:The only people who are against marijuana legalization in this thread are trolling. Seriously, is this not obvious to everyone? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Do people still do that? Like it seems like after you've gotten high a few times you kind of figure that poo poo out. If you are still getting "too high" you may want to take a break. Look, you haven't lived life until you've rolled around on the floor for 10 minutes because you took too big of a dab. Also, until you've done that 50 times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This whole "states rights" thing with the Marijuana legalization just reeks of no-confederatism. Last time we let states trump the federal government we had slavery and a civil war. I'm afraid I have to agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on this issue: Recreational Marijuana use should remain 100% illegal. You are so dumb I guess you didn't read the articles stating that Elizabeth warren supports medical marijuana, and my guess is she does not approve of the frequent raids on pot dispensaries. Also, are you doubting the fact that marijuana is less dangerous than other legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You should start an emergency service that people can call when they get too high and would otherwise call a real emergency service. You could have a car with a siren and bring people ice water and cartoons. I know places like NYC have delivery everything services. You can get McDonalds nuggets, a cupcake, and a gatorade delivered to you, for the right price. Maybe have those delivered by moms with reassuring mom voices. Oh honey, you're fine. Now go sit down on the couch, I brought you a grilled cheese and Coke  Thanks fake mom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Seriously, is this not obvious to everyone? Take a look through the last few pages. It pretty clearly isn't to a number of people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Is there a legalization thread in GBS 1.XX or TCC that i can follow? On this subject i think i prefer a forum where everyone is in agreement. Its like debating the pros and cons of interracial marriage legalization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Look, you haven't lived life until you've rolled around on the floor for 10 minutes because you took too big of a dab. Also, until you've done that 50 times. What, like, in the same night? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Take a look through the last few pages. It pretty clearly isn't to a number of people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Elotana posted:It's clear to me, I was just trying to string him out for as obvious a troll reply as possible while still being generally educational to other readers re: federalism and then report that post because our mods generally need TROLL spelled out for them in refrigerator magnets. I actually enjoyed reading your posts, because they are very informative and give me a jumping off point to read about other decisions and rules about federalism vs. states rights. And the enforcement of a given law is really key to understanding a lot of the underlying purpose of it. Hell, back in the 1820s we had other branches of the federal government actively flouting other branch's decisions. See the Trail of Tears. Congress makes a treaty with the Indian tribes, people start encroaching, the Indians take the issue to the Supreme Court, win. And then Jackson is like " Mr. Holmes has made his decision, now he can enforce it" *proceeds to order troops to lead a death march for Native Americans across the country* In this case, when you look at how the law has been enforced, disproportionately against blacks and people of color, you begin to see that it has historically been about disenfranchising groups that the federal government has viewed with suspicion, or outright scorn. It will be really interesting to see this movement snowball into other states. As is happening more and more. I think that the answer to the question in the thread title is "It will spark a debate on the national level, show politicians there is popular support for such measures, and ultimately start a wave of copycat laws." Which is really the best possible outcome for the long term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You are so dumb I guess you didn't read the articles stating that Elizabeth warren supports medical marijuana, and my guess is she does not approve of the frequent raids on pot dispensaries. You are so dumb you assumed this thread was about medical marijuana and not "full marijuana legalization". Seriously dude, you didn't even read the title of the thread before posting in it? Seriously???? Google her position on marijuana legalization and get back to us. I dare you. And yes, I agree with her fully that it should be illegal forever. You disagree with her on this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Prosopagnosiac posted:And then Jackson is like " Mr. Holmes has made his decision, now he can enforce it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren is pro Israel too, doesn't mean she isn't a generally progressive (for a Democrat) Senator. So like, what is your point exactly here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Google her position on marijuana legalization and get back to us. I dare you. And yes, I agree with her fully that it should be illegal forever. You disagree with her on this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
rscott posted:Elizabeth Warren is pro Israel too, doesn't mean she isn't a generally progressive (for a Democrat) Senator. So like, what is your point exactly here? Just fact checking Tight Booty Shorts. He called me an idiot for agreeing with Warren on Marijuana. What is your point exactly? I don't understand what you want here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:And yes, I agree with her fully that it should be illegal forever. Could you elaborate on what other substances should be illegal forever, just as a point of discussion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Could you elaborate on what other substances should be illegal forever, just as a point of discussion? Drugs, guns, SUV's, coal, private schools. Does that count as a "substance"? Not sure what your point is. What substances do you want to be illegal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Drugs, guns, SUV's, coal, private schools. Does that count as a "substance"? Well aren't you special. Here, I'll give you a list. You tick off the ones you'd ban.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:You are so dumb you assumed this thread was about medical marijuana and not "full marijuana legalization". Seriously dude, you didn't even read the title of the thread before posting in it? Seriously???? You mentioned medical marijuana facilities in your post. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
mdemone posted:Well aren't you special. Here, I'll give you a list. You tick off the ones you'd ban. You do realize that he is just going to ask you to prove the validity of the study where that graph came from, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Given all the new posts I figured something big and/or interesting had happened in regards to marijuana legalization. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:If Jackson did say this, he probably would have been addressing Marshall, and to my knowledge there isn't good evidence he did say this. He did note that the Supreme Court lacks an enforcement arm in a case where they overturned a conviction and Georgia ignored them for some time, Worcester v. Georgia. My bad, I thought it was Holmes for some reason. The fact remains that he did what he did, in direct violation of federal law. With dire consequences for the Native Americans. Which really goes to show that the enforcement or non-enforcement of laws has a bigger impact on people's daily lives than just the laws on the books.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:You do realize that he is just going to ask you to prove the validity of the study where that graph came from, right? I was hoping that we could just initially ignore the rankings on the right, and focus on which substances from the list he would ban. Then we could bring up the rankings if necessary, such that we can potentially avoid having the whole discussion about the methodology of a peer-reviewed meta-study. GuyDudeBroMan, would you make benzodiazepines illegal? What about methadone? Buprenorphine? Tobacco? What about the elephant in the room, alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You mentioned medical marijuana facilities in your post. Yes, I agree with Obama about medical marijuana. I also agree with Warren about legalization. Any other questions? mdemone posted:I was hoping that we could just initially ignore the rankings on the right, and focus on which substances from the list he would ban. Then we could bring up the rankings if necessary, such that we can potentially avoid having the whole discussion about the methodology of a peer-reviewed meta-study. Yes, I would like to see tobacco taxed into non-existence and hopefully eliminated from society. Everything else on that list should be prescription only. We are stuck with alcohol unfortunately. But that is what sin taxes are for. So yeah, basically I agree with 90% of sitting US Senators and Congressmen on most of these issues (my tobacco stance might only be shared with 30% though, not sure). Maybe we are all secretly "trolling" you. Is that what you are trying to argue? The entire US Senate is just trolling? All the 2016 presidential hopefuls are "trolling"? Sounds like paranoia to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:38
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Everything else on that list should be prescription only. Why?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:We are stuck with alcohol unfortunately. But that is what sin taxes are for. I agree with you that we should tax and regulate alcohol and then combine that with education to reduce alcohol use. That sounds like it might work. I'm glad that you don't think that we should try to stop alcohol use by, I don't know, imprisoning 700,000 people a year for possession. Seems like a common sense approach and I wonder if we could use this method (I call it the GuyDudeBroMan method) on any other substances. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Clearly the way ahead on drugs is to throw people into dungeons forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Also the
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:04
|
|
