|
That doctor's an idiot. Weed helps weed smokers eat, and then he starts going on about people jumping off of buildings.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Why do these assholes have to keep tempting fate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Ooh, buckle up!quote:Westboro Baptist Church hates pot: controversial Church to picket Marijuana shops in Colorado
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
The WBC are picketing? Then this is something positively moral and good for the world. Stay the course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Ooh, buckle up! This was last week. Only seven WBC people showed up, first they picketed the courthouse to protest gay marriage where about 400 peaceful, civilized counter-protesters showed up. Later on, they picketed a marijuana store, about 30 showed up to counter. This was all during a winter storm. I wish I could've went to counter-protest, but I'm a pussy when it comes to cold weather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
What exactly is the point of counter-protesting? To show the world that you don't agree with them? It should go without saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:What exactly is the point of counter-protesting? To show the world that you don't agree with them? It should go without saying. WBC is a spectator event. People just go to ogle, laugh, and get a new facebook profile pic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:WBC is a spectator event. People just go to ogle, laugh, and get a new facebook profile pic. This, and also counter-protesting the WBC started as a way of protecting grieving families from having to view their bullshit when they picket funerals, and I guess a network of counter-protestors developed from there. I can think of worse ways of spending an afternoon 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
They just bait people into attacking them so they can sue them. That's essentially all they ever do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Republicans are starting to realise that opposition to state cannabis laws may undermine efforts to protect states rights.quote:Oklahoma Republicans don’t want state to sue Colorado over legalized pot
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
"We also do not feel that attempting to undermine the sovereignty of a neighboring state using the federal courts, even if inadvertently, is a wise use of Oklahoma’s limited state resources." Lmao, disputes between the states is literally the reason the Supreme Court exists. Oklahoma of all states should be intimately familiar with that, considering all the Supreme Court Cases they have brought against Texas I could only readilly find two, but I'm pretty sure there have been others. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/258/574/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/606/ tl;dr Rivers make for a lot of ambiguity in establishing boarders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Colorado doctors believe they're seeing symptoms of withdrawal from people who dab (probably nonstop) Cannabis withdrawal symptoms are well documented and not a controversial idea at all. They're just not very severe for most people (insomnia, sweating, agitation, all of which tend to resolve in 3-21 days even among long-term, hardcore users). I don't think there's anything magical about dabs in this regard except that it makes it easier for people who want to smoke pot like its crack to do so. edit: that last comment is absolutely not an indication that I think oil should be treated differently than weed legally, just a snarky observation of the few people I've known who fall into doing 20+ dabs a day for months. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
They make titanium crack nails?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
http://wamu.org/news/15/01/07/challenging_congressional_ban_dc_legislator_introduces_pot_legalization_bill This will go less than nowhere, but one of the DC Councilmembers is going to say "gently caress it" and will call for the DC council to start working on the full taxing/selling legalization, despite being forbidden by congress, under the assumption that they won't want to actually do the effort to do anything about it. Curious to see how quickly this gets smacked down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:http://wamu.org/news/15/01/07/challenging_congressional_ban_dc_legislator_introduces_pot_legalization_bill Good for them. Hard to believe there's too much momentum behind the anti-weed vitriol at this point. It is interesting how this is all playing out in the press and cultural consciousness. A couple weeks ago my mother, who has more or less been shades of extremely liberal since the late 60s, expressed some concern that "if it becomes standard, you know, for wedding banquets to have a pot bar, won't people just get too stoned to dance at their wedding and no one will dance anymore?" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
People can have the weirdest concerns 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
 A stoned wedding would be pretty unremarkable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
If it was well catered it'd be a rad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:If it was well catered it'd be a rad idea. Just scatter a bunch of vending machines around that are free to use. All u can eat fritos and swiss rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:This will go less than nowhere, but one of the DC Councilmembers is going to say "gently caress it" and will call for the DC council to start working on the full taxing/selling legalization, despite being forbidden by congress, under the assumption that they won't want to actually do the effort to do anything about it. Hmmmm, how did I know it would be Grosso? He's pretty hip. I had wondered whether DC Council would do something like this, say "sure we can't enact any new laws, but we can set up every single check in the box except final approval, and then just wait until the next fiscal year to launch it after the clause blocking us expires." On a separate note: bwahahahahahaha! The astroturfers who made the incredibly ineffective "Two Is Enough DC" (meaning we're okay with booze and smokes, we don't need weed) are getting nailed by the Office of Campaign Finance for running a political campaign without filing pretty much any of the needed paperwork. TIE is claiming that they're "not really a political campaign" despite holding press conferences, putting up anti-weed adverts, and running a website with a PayPal button soliciting funding. OFC is just going after them for a $2,000 slap on the dick, nothing huge, but in principle it's hilarious: http://dcist.com/2015/01/anti-pot_legalization_advocates_vio.php 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Tourists should come to Washington for this thing we'll probably shut down in a few weeks/months because conservatives are imbeciles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
For those who don't know, about two-thirds of the local government's revenue here in the District of Columbia is raised locally (from taxes, fees, parking tickets, etc., the same mix of things that any city has), while about one-third comes from the federal government, ostensibly to pay DC for the services it receives because DC is legally forbidden from levying property taxes on all the federal buildings and such*. However, we are basically required to give control over the locally raised money to Congress so they can release it back to us (with their additions) as part of the budget, which is why they can hold our local laws hostage even though the majority of the city's finances are raised locally**. If you don't live in DC and you think this sucks, consider bugging your congressional delegation to support the proposed District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act; we'll probably eventually have a Congress where it can pass again, and it would probably help if they had seen long-term support from a constituent or two. * Needless to say this token payment doesn't come anywhere close to what DC would receive if it could fairly assess and tax all that prime downtown real estate, but whatever ** This is also why the city government was supposed to shut down when the federal government shutdown happened, but the mayor basically said "gently caress that" and proclaimed the whole city government was essential employees, and he even sent local trash trucks to empty some of the overflowing trash cans on National Park Service land to try to keep rats from accumulating and such
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
All I see are dildos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Tourists should come to Washington for this thing we'll probably shut down in a few weeks/months because conservatives are imbeciles. Well, at least they'd have something to do while waiting out that government shutdown... I'm becoming pretty convinced DC is not going to take this quietly, so while it is almost assured that there won't be anything resembling legal stores between now and September (it was going to take longer than that to get them stood up anyway), I think it very likely DC will be calling Congress's bluff, and/or taking steps based on our own interpretation of the amendment and double-dog-daring Congress to do something to stop them. This has potential for hilarity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Has there been any update on when they'll be transmitting 71 to Congress? I've heard a lot of news about how it's decided that DC intends to transmit it, and previously everything was all about how it would be transmitted shortly after January 1st, but I haven't heard anything. Are there any announced plans on if/when they plan to actually do it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:All I see are dildos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Has there been any update on when they'll be transmitting 71 to Congress? I've heard a lot of news about how it's decided that DC intends to transmit it, and previously everything was all about how it would be transmitted shortly after January 1st, but I haven't heard anything. Are there any announced plans on if/when they plan to actually do it? I keep seeing "any day now" in the news, but haven't seen it actually be transmitted yet. Council Chairman and AG are adamant about submitting it, Rep Harris (R-MD) is insisting that they legally can't even send it to Oversight, so if they do he'll go whining to Oversight that they should ignore it as an invalid submission. That being said, if Oversight ignores it, I could see DC shrugging and saying "fine, we're starting the clock anyway, you have 30 days to vote to block". Grosso isn't the only guy on the council pushing giving Congress the finger and just opening stores ASAP. Last I heard, he has like 4 co-sponsors (of 13 councilmembers total), so this isn't a total pipe-dream. quote:
I can't help but feel that Grosso's comment is kinda a jab at the DC Cannabis Campaign, since going out and blocking traffic outside of Heritage Foundation was one of their protests of the Cromnibus Bill. But that's of limited value since Metro PD has apparently taken a firm strategy of simply working around people who are clearly trying to get themselves arrested, so MPD just cordoned off the blocks surrounding the roadblock, basically said "feel free to stand in the street as long as you like" and waited for folks to get cold and bored. To one degree, it's a good thing that the political scene has gotten to the point that the police reaction to civil disobedience is to try to pacify the situation rather than bust heads, but it does take the zing out of martyrdom (which is the intent). I'm honestly really surprised that people aren't just holding massive smoke-ins (on District, not Federal, property) as a show of disobedience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Tourists should come to Washington State 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
And we're off! http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ry.html?hpid=z2 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
"District officials received signed confirmation from both the House and Senate that they had accepted the ballot measure for review just after 4:20 p.m." Lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:"District officials received signed confirmation from both the House and Senate that they had accepted the ballot measure for review just after 4:20 p.m." Apparently the Post editors later removed that sideline gag. In any case, even with the enthusiasts in this thread we always seem unclear (including me) as to exactly how long Oversight takes. Here's WAMU's (NPR) reporting on the exact date: http://wamu.org/news/15/01/13/dc_council_transmits_marijuana_initiative_to_congress_defying_republicans posted:The transmittal kicks off the traditional 30-day congressional review period that all D.C. laws go through before taking effect. If no disapproval resolution is passed within those 30 days — which are counted on those days when either the House or Senate is in session — the initiative will be considered approved by Congress. The Council has set that date as Feb. 26.  I legit think the Post should be calling stores that sell gardening supplies to see if there's been any uptick. Or call up major online retailers of home-grow items and ask if there's a general (not individual people) uptick in sales to DC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
And surprising nobody, Andy Harris (R-MD) is calling for Congress to sue the DC City Council for allegedly illegally forwarding the initiative for review.quote:But Harris disagrees, saying that just by transmitting the bill to the Hill D.C. officials may have spent money. I know that pedantry is a fundamental part of the legal system, but on some level how can you not feel ridiculous literally arguing over pennies in a $1,100,000,000 Cromnibus bill. But in fairness, MMJ was delayed in DC for a decade literally on the argument that counting the votes cast in 1998 would cost $1.64 and thereby violate the Appropriations bill barring money from being used to loosen marijuana laws. As in, DC full on held a vote but was legally barred from counting the votes, which is pretty creepily dystopian. I just know bits and pieces of Congress stuff, anybody have a good handle on what the odds are of Congressional Republicans actually deciding to sue the DC City Council, and what kind of effort that would take? There's also some concern that the new guy in charge of the House Oversight Committee, Chaffetz (R-UT) is really, really anti-weed. He has a real buzkill public statement up on his site: https://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/rep-jason-chaffetz-statement-opposing-legalization-marijuana posted:“I am opposed to legislative and legal efforts to reclassify or decriminalize the use of marijuana. Marijuana is a psychotropic drug classified under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act as having ‘high potential for abuse,’ ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,’ and a ‘lack of accepted safety for use of the drug…under medical supervision.’ While certain of these principles may be open to significant debate within segments of the medical community, and among pro-legalization/decriminalization groups, I am opposed to re-classification and decriminalization efforts. And while derivatives of marijuana are available in pill form for medicinal purposes, smoked marijuana is a health danger, not a cure, and therefore remains a harmful and dangerous drug for people of all ages.” That said, House Oversight was R-held last year, and managed to have one hearing during their review period for Decrim, so even if somehow House Oversight declares DC weed a tippy-top priority for the presumably frantic Jan-Feb period, blocking it in Oversight would require the Senate Oversight Committee to do the same, vote to uphold the block in both houses, at which point it would go to the President who has previously said he'll sign no such thing. From what I see, Oversight isn't really the problem, and Appropriations isn't really the current problem since they've already set DC's budget for this year. The only issue left for legalization (but not yet sales) is whether Congress sues DC to stop their transmitting the voter's choice to Congress. Not sues them not to do it, literally sues them over forwarding the certified results. I don't want to overrate the weed issue just because I find it interesting, but this has the potential to be a wedge issue between the Small Gov't vs. Moral Majority Republicans, so I'm extremely curious to see which Repubs refuse to back the anti-weed agenda when it comes down to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
I love the circular logic. "Many people, including those in the medical community, think marijuana is misclassified. Marijuana is classified as a dangerous drug with no legitimate use. I am against any attempts to reclassify this drug, for it is dangerous and has no legitimate use, you see!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Cannabis should be illegal because it's harmful and dangerous? No. That's merely a reason to abstain from using it. It does not bolster your argument for ongoing prohibition in any way. I despair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:This will go less than nowhere, but one of the DC Councilmembers is going to say "gently caress it" and will call for the DC council to start working on the full taxing/selling legalization, despite being forbidden by congress, under the assumption that they won't want to actually do the effort to do anything about it. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/dc-councilmembers-file-bill-tax-regulate-pot posted:Councilmember David Grosso and three colleagues have introduced the Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Act of 2015 (B21-0023), which would create a framework for a legal marijuana industry, complete with licensed cultivators, product manufacturers, retail stores, and testing labs. For those that want to see the proposed law that's got Grosso and three cosponsors (out of a council of 13): http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33216/B21-0023-Introduction.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
I'm genuinely curious, what happens when an anti marijuana politician is questioned about alcohol use? Does this ever happen? Like... I guess what I'm asking is do politicians in 2015 actually believe marijuana is bad for you or is it just dumb politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
I imagine they respond that intoxication is difficult to control when imbibing,lasts longer, and is harder to detect for law enforcement. By contrast alcohol% by volume is easier to control (1 bottle of beer/1 glass of wine/1 jigger of liquor), has a short life in your body (1 drink = 1 hr to cleanse) and easy to detect (respirated alcohol with a breathalyzer).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:I'm genuinely curious, what happens when an anti marijuana politician is questioned about alcohol use? Does this ever happen? Like... I guess what I'm asking is do politicians in 2015 actually believe marijuana is bad for you or is it just dumb politics. They just say "two wrongs don't make a right" and leave it at that. Yes, alcohol is bad but pot is even worse!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:I'm genuinely curious, what happens when an anti marijuana politician is questioned about alcohol use? Does this ever happen? Like... I guess what I'm asking is do politicians in 2015 actually believe marijuana is bad for you or is it just dumb politics. They either say: 1. We've already got a big problem with alcohol so why introduce another drug? or paraphrase Nixon: 2. "marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun"...and "At least with liquor you don't lose motivation."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
roymorrison posted:I'm genuinely curious, what happens when an anti marijuana politician is questioned about alcohol use? Does this ever happen? Like... I guess what I'm asking is do politicians in 2015 actually believe marijuana is bad for you or is it just dumb politics. In fairness, Jason Chaffetz is a Mormon and doesn't drink.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:41
|
|
