|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Every single one of those people were doing something else to piss people off. If you stayed calm and didn't get in other people's business you were fine. Ah yes, they were all smoking on 420, how dare they
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Ah yes, they were all smoking on 420, how dare they Everyone there was smoking weed. The people that got arrested were assholes who happened to be smoking weed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
quote:Denver Police Arrest 22 At Massive 4/20 Marijuana Rally In fairness, if you had a "Whiskey Sour Day" with 80,000 people publicly drinking in unapproved spaces, you'd get a bunch of people ticketed and a handful of ornery ones arrested too. I think this event meets the standards of "treat marijuana like alcohol". quote:What would you say is the ratio of people like this vs. people who are pro-decriminalization? DC Initiative 71 is full-on legalization, not decrim. In a 5hr workday (which nets me 100 signatures), I get maybe a dozen people making clear negative signs: scowling, muttering "no way" or "bad idea" as they walk by, etc. I only get a couple of real agro colorful ones per day, and a handful of annoying weird ones like some 20yr old slurring his words and teetering berating me about how "marijuana destabilize your inner being". I was canvassing in the same plaza as the Black Israelite Nation or whatever (basically Black neo-Nazis) and curious about response, but they only referred to me tangentially by mentioning "the white devil and his drug propaganda". Thinking on it, it's very possible they've been strongly cautioned by police about singling out individuals, so they have to say "the white devil is the spawn of whores and must be destroyed" instead of "that white devil over there is the spawn of whores and must be destroyed." I get a lot of people smiling and nodding politely, but easily several hundred a day giving me thumbs-up, cheering, bragging about how they're from Colorado, being disappointed that MD/VA residents can't sign, high-fiving me, honking horn and waving. The cops have been really cool, with more than half smiling/thumbs-up, saying "good luck" or "I'd sign it if I could" or mild teases like "aw man, you'll put me out of business!". The one single cop that was really negative:  Afternoon gentlemen! I know you can't sign while on-duty. Pffft, I wouldn't sign it even if I could. Well sir, we'll just have to let the voters decide in November. You mean we'll let the potheads decide in November. [smiles and nods politely, sidles off before I get hauled in for sass]Most of the strong negatives are brief and amusing, the annoying ones are moderate people who want to argue about minutiae based on their terrible opinions and misconceptions. People high on weed have been largely chill and easy to deal with, drunk people more annoying, but the only disturbing experiences I've had are dealing with people who appear to be on hard drugs. Granted, I voluntarily went to some extremely shady neighborhoods (Congress Heights) to canvass, but at the risk of sounding sheltered I'd never been around so many people so severely messed up at 1pm. I'm ex-mil and almost everyone I hang out with here is a gov't employee so I'm not at all familiar with drug use other than alcohol and weed, but I'm pretty sure some of what I saw was symptomatic of various harder stuff: nodding heads, drooling on self, really weird conversation even more disassociated than drunk people. Overall been an experience so far. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 02:42 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
goodness posted:Everyone there was smoking weed. how do you know?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:The most powerful I've seen was labeled at 18.X%, and apparently when I did a little research it is indeed a strain known for it's potency. It's a reasonable law, I suppose, but it strikes me as being along the same lines as laws that prohibit beer being over a certain percentage of alcohol. I'm not terribly sure if that works as a function for minimizing the societal harms that alcohol does, but 15% is a reasonable amount of THC. Commercially, I don't think I've seen anything lower than 12, but I also don't have a medical card. I wouldn't mind if we capped THC at 15%, but I'm not for that proposal. The bigger thing I would take issue with from Uruguay's marijuana law is that there will only be 5 different strains allowed to be grown or possessed in their country. Any other strains will be illegal, and they can do genetic testing to determine what strain you have. It'll be interesting to see how much this is enforced.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:how do you know? Same way I know people that get arrested for being drunk at events are probably being assholes or causing a disturbance. goodness fucked around with this message at 03:28 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
goodness posted:Why else would 22 people out of however many thousand be arrested. so you're just assuming, good to know.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:so you're just assuming, good to know. Fixed it so you could understand how things work.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
goodness posted:Fixed it so you could understand how things work. were you there? I don't understand how you could know what the circumstances were for the arrests. e: smoking and drinking are two completely different things, I don't think that smoking will you make you violent or black out. Have you ever drank or smoked before in your life? white sauce fucked around with this message at 04:06 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:were you there? I don't understand how you could know what the circumstances were for the arrests. Is it really hard to look at the circumstances and see the obvious? Of course there is a small chance it is not because of them being assholes, but is it that big a deal? This is a comedy forum first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
goodness posted:Is it really hard to look at the circumstances and see the obvious? Of course there is a small chance it is not because of them being assholes, but is it that big a deal? This is a comedy forum first and foremost. It's really easy! Well, maybe it's not so easy. And if it's not easy, why should I care? Joke website!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
All I can say is that what I say is based on anecdotal evidence from people I know there and the social network. It's not a big thing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
goodness posted:Is it really hard to look at the circumstances and see the obvious? Of course there is a small chance it is not because of them being assholes, but is it that big a deal? This is a comedy forum first and foremost. Yeah but this is D&D not GBS. With that being said I can safely assume those arrested were being assholes, but I can't say "I know they were being assholes" unless I was there to witness it firsthand or had copies of the arrest reports.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htmquote:Typical THC levels, which determine marijuana potency, range from 0.3 to 4 percent. However, some specially grown plants can contain THC levels as high as 25 percent, leading to a call by some users for producers to put out mellower Mary Jane [source: Marris] 15% seems a reasonable limit to me. Also, TBS, your threadcrapping is getting annoying. The extent to which you can twist every positive marijuana-related development into something negative is really exasperating. We are objectively making real progress on marijuana reform, and whining about how things aren't perfect isn't solving anything.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm I want cannabis and all drugs to be legal and regulated; skepticism over the rate of positive change is not the same thing as twisting positive developments into something negative. I grow cannabis, so I have some personal, hands-on experience with this wonderful plant. However, not everything in the US and the rest of the world is sunshine and rainbows.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
TBS I like you, so please don't take this personally, but some things just don't need to be legalized. Most people have the capacity to handle regular cannabis consumption, however most people do not have the capacity to handle regular consumption of other illegal substances. In my 20 years experience in the "marijuana sub-culture" I've witnessed exactly one person who was not able to handle pot. Conversely I've never witnessed anyone able handle regular use of amphetamines, opiates, or cocaine. I'm not saying those people do not exist, I've just never encountered them in the past 20 years. My personal opinion is that if the substance has the capacity to kill you in a short time of regular use or has sever physical withdrawal symptoms then it probably needs to be out of the hands of the general public.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Does regulating THC levels have any practical effect? What harm could weed with 25% THC cause?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:TBS I like you, so please don't take this personally, but some things just don't need to be legalized. Most people have the capacity to handle regular cannabis consumption, however most people do not have the capacity to handle regular consumption of other illegal substances. Yes, but the markets are going to exist regardless of what we do, so it's simply a matter of choosing who is going to regulate these drugs. Would you rather some drug dealer chump figure out the dosages for his customers, or a pharmacist?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Does regulating THC levels have any practical effect? What harm could weed with 25% THC cause? Well, the country only allows a handful of strains, so going well above 15% would mean you were using a non approved strain.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Yes, but the markets are going to exist regardless of what we do, so it's simply a matter of choosing who is going to regulate these drugs. Would you rather some drug dealer chump figure out the dosages for his customers, or a pharmacist? Tight Booty Shorts posted:Yes, but the markets are going to exist regardless of what we do, so it's simply a matter of choosing who is going to regulate these drugs. Would you rather some drug dealer chump figure out the dosages for his customers, or a pharmacist? Yes there will always be a black market and users seeking out those substances. But limiting the supply helps curtail the consumption. I look at it the same way as parents, kids, and sex. My job as a parent isn't to make sure my kids don't have sex before they're mature enough, my job is to make sure my kids can't gently caress like rabbits at every opportunity they get.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:Yes there will always be a black market and users seeking out those substances. But limiting the supply helps curtail the consumption. I look at it the same way as parents, kids, and sex. My job as a parent isn't to make sure my kids don't have sex before they're mature enough, my job is to make sure my kids can't gently caress like rabbits at every opportunity they get. Actually, limiting the supply does the opposite.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:skepticism over the rate of positive change is not the same thing as twisting positive developments into something negative When people point out that 21 states have some form of medical marijuana, 8 more states have med pot legislation pending, 2 states straight up legalized weed (and the feds response was "Meh. Whatevs."!!) with more states likely to legalize this year or in 2016, and that, nationwide, public opinion solidly favors legalization of recreational pot you respond by reminding everyone that pot is still, in fact, illegal most places and people still get arrested. Well no poo poo. You flat out refuse to acknowledge that there has been any positive change at all which is basically twisting positives to negatives. Stormfang1502 posted:Yes there will always be a black market and users seeking out those substances. But limiting the supply helps curtail the consumption. I look at it the same way as parents, kids, and sex. My job as a parent isn't to make sure my kids don't have sex before they're mature enough, my job is to make sure my kids can't gently caress like rabbits at every opportunity they get. So what you're saying is that if your kids have sex before you think they should they should go to prison for a couple of decades? Also, that the sex they have should be provided by homicidal criminal gangs?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:When people point out that 21 states have some form of medical marijuana, 8 more states have med pot legislation pending, 2 states straight up legalized weed (and the feds response was "Meh. Whatevs."!!) with more states likely to legalize this year or in 2016, and that, nationwide, public opinion solidly favors legalization of recreational pot you respond by reminding everyone that pot is still, in fact, illegal most places and people still get arrested. Well no poo poo. You flat out refuse to acknowledge that there has been any positive change at all which is basically twisting positives to negatives. Congratulations, this is good news, but there is still a lot of work ahead!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Actually, limiting the supply does the opposite. You could be right, I'd need to see your source on that. In my experience limiting the supply make people do one of two things; they either give it up or they do increasingly stupid and dangerous things to obtain it. The people who choose the latter option tend to be the type of people who are destined to self-destruct anyway unless some kind of forced intervention is placed on them, and even then that doesn't always work. Besides any talk of "hey let's legalize this too" is bound to be bad for cannabis legalization. The current effort is working because the public opinion of cannabis has changed over the last 20 years, public opinion of amphetamines, opiates, and cocaine has not. We definitely do NOT need the anti-legalization crowd to start swaying public opinion back by starting in with "Look what else those evil druggies want your kids to be able to legally buy too!"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So what you're saying is that if your kids have sex before you think they should they should go to prison for a couple of decades? Also, that the sex they have should be provided by homicidal criminal gangs? Nope that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that kids are going to have sex and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to stop it. You can however educate your kids and limit the opportunities they have to engage in sexual activity, just like people are going to consume dangerous substances and all you can try to do is educate them and limit the availability of those substances. You're implying that I want users to go to prison and I don't feel that I ever gave that impression. If little Johnny is caught with a few grams of coke I'd rather seem him get some help and education instead of going to criminal college (i.e. prison). Stormfang1502 fucked around with this message at 05:57 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:You could be right, I'd need to see your source on that. Read up on the success of Portugal and how they made HIV rates decrease by decriminalizing drugs. quote:When Portugal's parliament was debating the proposed Law 30/2000, representatives of right-wing parties declared that planes would start arriving in the country daily, full of people looking for an easy opportunity to pump themselves full of drugs. Our entire country will become a drug-ridden slum, these parties said. The left-wing parties in parliament held a majority, though. I should also point out that methamphetamines are legal in the US by prescription.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
First of all, I know amphetamines are legal by prescription, that's why I said they should not be available to the "general public". You have to have a good reason to possess those and you have to have a medical proffesional approve the use. Secondly, it's great that it has lowered HIV infection rate but I don't see any data regarding overdoses and such. Look at the "pill mills" that have sprung up over the last decade. In those you have unethical "medical professionals" (term used loosely in this case) who will give anything to anyone who can pay and keep their mouth shut and look at the number of prescription drug overdoses over the last 10 years. The rates have exploded. In fact prescription drug overdoses account for more deaths than heroin and cocaine now and it seems to be simply because of availability and ignorance.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:just like people are going to consume dangerous substances and all you can try to do is educate them and limit the availability of those substances. Therefore, ensure that the production and distribution of the thing you can't stop is in the hands of local and international criminal organizations that use torture and murder to protect their territories. Sounds like an excellent plan. Its been working just great so far! As a side benefit, you also get the worlds largest prison population and more black people in the prison system than there ever were under slavery.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:First of all, I know amphetamines are legal by prescription, that's why I said they should not be available to the "general public". You have to have a good reason to possess those and you have to have a medical proffesional approve the use. There are plenty of ways to deter people from using drugs without resorting to criminalisation. If you can't think of any you're an idiot. Besides, all these overdoses have emerged in a climate of prohibition. KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:46 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
I can see your points to an extent. It just seems that with free access you're exchanging the existing precipitating factors (such as criminal activity) for new ones (like increased medical treatment). I could be wrong, I'll admit that. I've just never personally known anyone who has said "you know, meth and opiates have had a positive impact on my life and I'm a better person because of it." Besides legalization will not make the dangerous people go away, they'll simply become bootleggers by selling their unregulated untaxed product for less to the poorest. It would still cost less than the current state of affairs so I gotta give you that too. As for other deterrents to drug use, public shaming seems to be the best bet. It's been working for tobbacco use and we could pump more money into TheTruth.com. I guess the comedic value of those ads alone would be worth it but we're still going to be giving lots of money to lovely people on both sides.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:I can see your points to an extent. It just seems that with free access you're exchanging the existing precipitating factors (such as criminal activity) for new ones (like increased medical treatment). I could be wrong, I'll admit that. I've just never personally known anyone who has said "you know, meth and opiates have had a positive impact on my life and I'm a better person because of it." Besides legalization will not make the dangerous people go away, they'll simply become bootleggers by selling their unregulated untaxed product for less to the poorest. It would still cost less than the current state of affairs so I gotta give you that too. Actually prescription amphetamines have had a great impact on my life. I have adult ADD.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
rscott posted:You know what excludes you from getting loans for a college degree? A criminal drug record! Good point. Also, a related problem is, the easy accessibility of these criminal records to corporations and the general public. I can offer anecdotally that back when I was first burdened with such a criminal drug record I learned that the best way to get a decent job was to never, ever tell a potential employer about that record. Since the emergence of networked computing and the wide availability of access to that information, simply omitting that information from a job application has become much more problematic. Tangentially, I can't even travel very many places overseas because our illustrious government now shares all of this data electronically with a bunch of other governments. Now multiply my situation by however many millions of drug offenders and we have a recipe for millions of personal disasters and economic hobbling of large swaths of society.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Beaters, my dad's wife has faced the same travel limits as a UK citizen for something that happened in the 70s. Not only does it make that stuff a pain in the rear end but it also never goes away. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Actually prescription amphetamines have had a great impact on my life. I have adult ADD. I did a few bumps of meth every day for a week and used it to kick-start my exercise and weight loss regime; 40lbs lighter and feeling fantastic! i am harry fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Read up on the success of Portugal and how they made HIV rates decrease by decriminalizing drugs. This is a really specious argument. You claimed that limiting the supply results in increased consumption. This is a pretty non-intuitive argument, and the Portugal situation has nothing to do with it. Portugal decriminalized possession and use only. Production or importation of drugs remain criminalized there. So Portugal did not directly affect the supply of drugs in their country. Furthermore, I fail to see how HIV rates have anything to do with your "limiting supply-->increased consumption" theory. I would argue that the success Portugal has experienced is a result of their harm reduction approach to drug use, not due to increasing the supply of drugs. Is there even any evidence that the supply of drugs in Portugal has increased since 2001?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/travel/tsa-suitcases-marijuana/index.html?c=us How stupid do you have to be to think you can get away with this?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
i am harry posted:I did a few bumps of meth every day for a week and used it to kick-start my exercise and weight loss regime; 40lbs lighter and feeling fantastic! This is quite possibly the dumbest poo poo I have ever heard.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Stormfang1502 posted:I can see your points to an extent. It just seems that with free access you're exchanging the existing precipitating factors (such as criminal activity) for new ones (like increased medical treatment). I could be wrong, I'll admit that. I've just never personally known anyone who has said "you know, meth and opiates have had a positive impact on my life and I'm a better person because of it." Besides legalization will not make the dangerous people go away, they'll simply become bootleggers by selling their unregulated untaxed product for less to the poorest. It would still cost less than the current state of affairs so I gotta give you that too. There is so much wrong with all of this.  A. The US is already in a state of "free access" to drugs. All it takes is money and knowing where to get it. Legalization would change the "where you get it" from a back-alley dealer to a storefront with FDA oversight. B. Anecdotal evidence of never meeting a person who had opiates improve their life is no reason to punish people more for needing/wanting drugs. C. Who are the "dangerous people" and why would they become bootleggers when their target customers have no reason to buy from them? D. How on earth is a bootlegger going to compete with a legal store? Do you see alcohol bootleggers around every corner now? Even if it were slightly cheaper to buy from Bubba's Backalley Brews, would you be ok with just a tiny bit of eye-destroying methanol in it? It makes no sense to keep arresting and jailing people for their drug use. The US's war on drugs is far worse than other alternatives systems of dealing with drug use.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:48
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:This is quite possibly the dumbest poo poo I have ever heard. You should check out your own posting some time
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
You cannot be a bootlegger if the thing you're selling is legal. Unless you consider microbreweries bootleggers. e. nevermind I know nothing superjew fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
superjew posted:You cannot be a bootlegger if the thing you're selling is legal. Unless you consider microbreweries bootleggers. The Mafia bootlegs cigarettes all of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:58
|
|
