|
You know, now that weed is legal, it just doesnt have that same cool factor to it. I think I'm gonna quit. Smoking is for squares.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Results of CPAC's straw poll are in, and unsurprisingly Rand Paul came in first. The event has a ton of attendance from college kids who are subsidized and on group excursions, so pretty high youth presence, and young Paulites are exactly the kind of folks to get excited about swarming a straw poll. What with the Paulites voting, I was kinda disappointed in the vote on weed issues: quote:Forty-one percent believed marijuana should be legalized. Fifty-three percent said it should not be legalized for recreational purposes, and 27 percent said it should be outlawed outright. So... mixed news? A majority of conservatives are not in favor of marijuana legalization, but the good news is that 40% is still pretty drat high for a gathering of people excited enough about conservatism to attend a convention about it. I attended the debate between Gary Johnson and Ann Marie Buerkle (it wasn't until the next day that I recognized Johnson's name as past Libertarian presidential candidate), and the pro-weed side definitely got more frequent applause out of the crowd. The anti-weed side only started getting applause after strong points midway though, I think just because the anti folks were realizing they were looking bad when Johnson was getting ovations every other minute and they had crickets for Buerkle. Really I thought both people did a piss-poor job in terms of actual debate, both really just played to their base, but at least Johnson was engaging about it. You can really see the debate summed up in this 30-second clip where Johnson, a former governor and presidential candidate, launches himself out of his chair and rolls on the floor faking a heart attack. Really not a high point for the art of debating, but you can really get the gist of the whole debate in half a minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxZzmf6peA8  Apparently there was another debate on weed later between "Mary Katharine Ham of Fox and Hot Air and Christopher Beach a staffer for former Drug Czar William Bennett’s radio show." Per Breitbart, that one was a one-sided audience just hammering the antis, apparently with some credible licks by that one ex-cop with the cowboy hat who goes to all these events promoting legalization. So yeah, even Breitbart did a full piece recognizing the strength of the pro-weed argument at CPAC: http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2014/03/07/cpac-audience-legalize-it/ The decent degree of pro-weed stuff made being there bearable, because otherwise I was just going to flip out on the next 20yr old to gush about how brave Walker is for taking on the unions. EDIT: the Comfy Tree Cannabis Convention is at Holiday Inn Capitol Saturday and Sunday, down by L'Enfant Station. The classes and things cost money (and are largely sold out) but the expo is free from 10am-5pm, so I might mosey on down to that tomorrow. http://www.hellocomfytree.com/ 
TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Though CPAC skews, surprise, conservative, apparently overall Millennial Republicans are really pro-legalization. Really it's only the people who are 70+ that are dragging their feet on this whole process, ironically a lot of whom were around when weed was semi-legal nationwide prior to 1937: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/republican-millennials-marijuana_n_6775674.html?utm_hp_ref=tw 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:
I was at the expo there today, it was pretty weird and interesting. A bit like a head shop, a LOT of people were signing up with the two staffing agencies that had tables (that's a thing?! who knew). There were other tables there for people representing insurance companies and even an investment bank. Even though retail sales aren't legal yet there's still a green rush of head shops selling paraphernalia and catering to support people who want turnkey operations ready as soon as Congress stops obstructing retail sales. What was particularly funny was standing near the door afterwards and noticing a person walk by every 2-3 minutes shaking their head in disappointment that it wasn't a huge smoke-in or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I was at the expo there today, it was pretty weird and interesting. A bit like a head shop, a LOT of people were signing up with the two staffing agencies that had tables (that's a thing?! who knew). There were other tables there for people representing insurance companies and even an investment bank. Even though retail sales aren't legal yet there's still a green rush of head shops selling paraphernalia and catering to support people who want turnkey operations ready as soon as Congress stops obstructing retail sales. What was particularly funny was standing near the door afterwards and noticing a person walk by every 2-3 minutes shaking their head in disappointment that it wasn't a huge smoke-in or something. That does it, I'm going tomorrow. By the way, for anyone that's actually a DC resident, take a minute to write your councilmember to encourage them not to support the mayor's ban on "cannabis clubs". Somehow Bowser got it into her head that this is a pressing issue meriting "emergency legislation", which I find just baffling. Also, hilariously enough, any such new legislation probably is illegal under the Cromnibus because this is occurring after the December budget, so we don't have the "it passed in November" loophole like we did for legalization overall. http://marijuana.heraldtribune.com/2015/02/27/day-1-legalization-d-c-mayor-submits-bill-prevent-pot-clubs/ I just emailed my Ward 1 councilman, and the At-Large councilmembers as well; did copy-paste and the whole thing took like under 10 minutes. I don't think I've ever emailed my councilman before, so might as well start now. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Huh. The Gen X democrats breaking the trend is kind of surprising. Was that mostly due to Reagan? Or maybe just rebelling against their parent's hippie generation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Matey posted:Huh. The Gen X democrats breaking the trend is kind of surprising. Was that mostly due to Reagan? Or maybe just rebelling against their parent's hippie generation? Might be Reagan. DARE started in 1983 though, which is probably a factor. The GenX crowd largely saw the spike in crime that hit urban areas as a result of a variety of causes, so potentially some of that rubbed off in the form of anti-drug stuff (childhood lead exposure due to leaded gasoline, lovely drug policies, civil rights backlash, deliberate gutting of urban areas, white flight, whatever). Hating hippies and blaming them for the loss in Vietnam (and therefore drugs) is possibly also part of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Matey posted:Huh. The Gen X democrats breaking the trend is kind of surprising. Was that mostly due to Reagan? Or maybe just rebelling against their parent's hippie generation? A combination of factors has been suggested, but these include: - growing up around "Just Say No" propaganda, cheesy as it was, had some effect - being around when the crack epidemic and needle drug HIV transmission were huge news topics - the biggie though is parenthood; Nate Silver has a 2010 piece on California, where something like 50% of childless people 18-59 supported legal weed, but it was 10-15% lower in that spectrum for parents. This raises the big question: how much of a chunk of that Millennial pro-pot vote are we going to start losing as more of them enter their 30s and have families? Link to the Silver piece, also interesting in that even in 2010, successes like we're seeing now were still the stuff of raging optimism: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/are-parents-just-saying-no-to-marijuana-legalization/ Even on this forum, we don't have to go back more than a few years to find prior weed threads where people insisted that none of us would ever see a single state legalize weed (and not be stomped down by the Feds) in our lifetimes, and now it wouldn't be over-rosy to hope for some form of federal legalization in the next 10-15 years. A starry-eyed guess would be a major shift during the 2016-2020 presidential administration, as the Feds react to having 10 to 20 states with full legality. Absolute Hail Mary, Obama does something hilarious in January 2017 just because he can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:- the biggie though is parenthood; Nate Silver has a 2010 piece on California, where something like 50% of childless people 18-59 supported legal weed, but it was 10-15% lower in that spectrum for parents. This raises the big question: how much of a chunk of that Millennial pro-pot vote are we going to start losing as more of them enter their 30s and have families? Ah, yeah, that's true. I mean, we all know it's stupid for them to worry about that, but Gen-X parents with children under 20 or w/e are probably worried about legal weed. I get it, although I wish I didn't. Hopefully the millennial parents will, I dunno, not be quite as dumb when their time comes. Reddit and memes may decide the future of parents' approval of weed. Good god
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Matey posted:Reddit and memes may decide the future of parents' approval of weed. Good god That's one thing I'm really curious/concerned about. Right now a lot of key Democrat leaders aren't doing much at all for the weed cause, while people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are coming out with at least vague "I'm not fond of weed but maybe we should be changing our laws". Paul already has the advantage of name recognition and a pre-existing base of lunatics (disclosure: I once was one), but unlike his daddy is an actual politician rather than a demagogue, which makes him dangerous. The GOP arguably has a shot at stealing a chunk of the libertard/MRA/neckbeard/general goony white privileged middle class male who's generically upset about life. If the Democrats let the GOP steal a march on them, the right wing could grab a bunch of support by championing some admittedly positive causes previously more associated with the left, like marijuana, protecting civil liberties, lessening the police state, etc. And then turn around and do some serious harm to the situation of the poor, women, and minorities. Though Clinton has been an anti-drug warrior in the past, she's supposed to be a really canny politician, so I really hope she doesn't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by hanging limp on weed and letting the GOP just scoop up the white college-educated male 18-35 demographic over things like weed and NSA surveillance. EDIT: I swung by the weed expo, but since we had a ghastly freezing rain today attendance was down from Saturday, when the place was mobbed. Here's a decent news piece if you want to see video footage of the event: http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/dc/2015/03/01/cannabis-conference-draws-a-packed-house-in-dc/24197893/ The Post got cheeky and described the event as D.C.’s pot expo: Less Cheech and Chong, more Berkshire Hathaway. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
National level Democrats aren't saying that much but state level ones are, and you're not seeing it legalized anywhere with a mainly Republican state government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:National level Democrats aren't saying that much but state level ones are, and you're not seeing it legalized anywhere with a mainly Republican state government. Um, Alaska? Consistent Red state; presidentially it has gone Blue once since becoming a state. And that was 1964, where Johnson absolutely destroyed Goldwater, 486 EVs to 52. In their legislature the lower house has 23 R to 16 D, upper has 14 R to 6 D. Granted, Alaska is a somewhat unusual state, but it is inarguably a very Republican state, and also tied for the third state nationwide to legalize.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Um, Alaska? I legitimately forgot about them but they are an extreme outlier. Their closest equivalent is probably Idaho so look and see when they legalize.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Doesn't Alaska also have a strong Libertarian streak?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I legitimately forgot about them but they are an extreme outlier. Their closest equivalent is probably Idaho so look and see when they legalize. Well, we'll see about Arizona in 2016; they've only gone Blue once since the Korean War started (for Clinton, interestingly enough): http://www.270towin.com/states/Arizona Nevada, Florida, Ohio, and Colorado are Purple states too, not Blue; CO clearly went for pot, and NV looks on good track for 2016, they're clinched to have it on the ballot. FL got over 50% for medical (needed 60%) and there's hope they'll just go for legal in 2016. Ohio is looking a little rocky, but that's largely due to internal feuding rather than poor support among voters. Missouri has been a consistently Red state ever since the Southern Strategy, with the interesting exceptions of Carter and Clinton, white Southern good ol' boys: http://www.270towin.com/states/missouri . Missouri is a long-but-possible shot for 2016; polling last year showed 52% of likely 2016 voters in favor, which is a good toe-hold. quote:Doesn't Alaska also have a strong Libertarian streak? Sure, but Red is Red, and we're a two-party system. The counter-argument would be that there are plenty of Blue states with an authoritarian streak, so just being Blue is no guarantee of being pro-marijuana. Nebraska, North Carolina, and freaking Mississippi have all decriminalized, Red states all. Red Montana has medical. Whereas Blue-blue Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have no pro-weed state accomplishments, and New Jersey, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Illinois (all Blue) have only medical but no decrim. There's inarguably a lot more D than R in weed legalization right now, but it's by no means a purely D game, and if the Democrats nationally get complacent on this issue, they could lose what would otherwise be a strong head-start in using this as a vote-getter come 2016. EDIT: initially I got some of the states wrong because I was looking at a map with shapes but no names and got dumb. It's Mississippi that has decrim. In Alabama intent to sell, and any possession other than a first time freebie-misdemeanor, is a felony. And in Oklahoma you can get two years to life just for making hash: http://mnnorml.org/content/oklahoma-life-hash-bill-signed-also-includes-life-brownies-or-grinders So yeah, the crazy-lovely states are pretty Red. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Ohio advocates screwed the pooch last week; to submit your initial initiative proposal to the Attorney general there, it has to be accompanied by 1,000 valid signatures. They turned in 1,497 sigs, but only 883 of those were valid. So since they had an overly-rosy assumption that 67% of their sigs were valid, they got shot down. Let this be a lesson to you, take a hard look at the stats for petition valid signatures when you're crunching numbers, in DC it was well under 50%, so you really have to do massive overkill on the raw signatures to make sure you come out with enough valids at the end. The 117 valid signatures they were missing, one hard-working person could pick up 200 raw and thus at least 100 valid in a day, so really they should've just spent a tiny bit more time hustling rather than waste effort. An OH goons now, do they have to start over from scratch, or do they have a penalty period until they can resubmit, or can they literally just go out this week and be sure to get more than 117 more and try again? I know in some states that petition signatures are "immortal" or whatever, that if you don't get enough for 2016 you can just roll those signatures over and keep collecting and resubmit them again in 2018, stuff like that. In DC though, you only get one submission for your initiative, so if we'd not made the 23,000 cutoff in July 2014, had turned in even one valid signature short, we would've lost everything and had to start again in 2016. EDIT: okay, so apparently Ohio isn't dire, but they still wasted submitting and having to resubmit when they could've just spent like 10 more man-hours getting enough sigs in the first place: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/02/second_marijuana_legalization.html posted:Responsible Ohioans for Cannabis leader Don McAdams said the group will collect signatures in the coming weeks and resubmit the language. He said the group is much more organized since collecting the first batch of signatures and is confident the amendment language will be approved. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
I've been poking the DC campaign for a couple days about this, but it's just today they're spreading the word for folks to call/write their councilmembers. Mayor Bowser is trying to pass "emergency legislation" to prevent "cannabis clubs" in DC, though pretty much everything she's worried about (covert sales) is already illegal anyway. The downside is that it would pretty much prevent people from smoking anywhere that is not explicitly a private residence, so no renting out a roof deck for a private function or anything. If you're a DC resident, ping your Ward's councilman, and also the four "at-large" councilmembers. Details on Bowser's proposal here: https://twitter.com/dcmj2014 Best as anyone can tell, it's not particularly that Bowser's anti-weed, so much as she's concerned people will be indiscreet, start advertising big pot parties, and bring down the wrath of Congress when they personally witness pot events occurring downtown or whatnot. I'd submit that the Congressional hardliners aren't going to be satisfied with this anyway, and the worst scenarios it covers are already illegal, so this amounts to a "you can smoke, but just hidden away in your home by yourself". Given that DC has an infamously large number of social drinking spaces that are key to the cultural landscape, allowing zero options, even private, for weed seems overreaching.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
That sounds like some partisan rationalization for a lovely politician. Let the lovely congressmen throw a fit over DC governing themselves, it will only hurt them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I've been poking the DC campaign for a couple days about this, but it's just today they're spreading the word for folks to call/write their councilmembers. Mayor Bowser is trying to pass "emergency legislation" to prevent "cannabis clubs" in DC, though pretty much everything she's worried about (covert sales) is already illegal anyway. The downside is that it would pretty much prevent people from smoking anywhere that is not explicitly a private residence, so no renting out a roof deck for a private function or anything. I thought I had heard that, it was part of some backroom-ish deal between Bowser and congress, as a compromise of "if you guys don't do any sort of retaliatory budget stuff to dick over DC more, I'll try to push this through so that it minimizes the visibility of the effects of the law." So that basically it was everyone pro-71 angrily sighing but begrudgingly supporting it because we got the main thing we wanted, the rest will have to come slowly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:I thought I had heard that, it was part of some backroom-ish deal between Bowser and congress, as a compromise of "if you guys don't do any sort of retaliatory budget stuff to dick over DC more, I'll try to push this through so that it minimizes the visibility of the effects of the law." So that basically it was everyone pro-71 angrily sighing but begrudgingly supporting it because we got the main thing we wanted, the rest will have to come slowly. I'd be skeptical of that; the main folks pushing to overturn 71 are not at all people who are going to find this an acceptable compromise. They're the ones insisting that the law has already been broken, demanding documentation so they can assess how much money was "illegally" spent processing this legislation, etc. If by "Congress" you're meaning some thus-far silent folks that Bowser would be cutting deals with, it's possible that some of these folks might've said "I'll back you on this, but keep your citizens discrete so the optics don't go bad on this", but I have no way of knowing. My semi-educated guess is that Bowser was not 100% thrilled with the marijuana legalization, or at least the rapidity of this process, but can't afford to piss off 70% of the electorate. That's why at one point before this Cromnibus thing she was saying the Council would refrain from formalizing 71 until such time as stores/taxes were put in place, to avoid a "Wild West" environment. With stores/taxes blocked, but her forced into a showdown with Congress, it would not at all surprise me if she is preemptively trying to slow the pace of things because she isn't an enthusiastic supporter of this, but can't afford to publicly be anything but.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:The GOP arguably has a shot at stealing a chunk of the libertard/MRA/neckbeard/general goony white privileged middle class male who's generically upset about life. If the Democrats let the GOP steal a march on them, the right wing could grab a bunch of support by championing some admittedly positive causes previously more associated with the left, like marijuana, protecting civil liberties, lessening the police state, etc. And then turn around and do some serious harm to the situation of the poor, women, and minorities. I think kind of the exact opposite? Those people are already Straight Ticket R Libertarians or will in five years once they're done with their college brogressive phase. Maybe this is just me, but the people I know likely to switch party affiliation over marijuana legalization already lean pretty far to the right in most categories except drug legalization and marriage equality. I think the dems have a better shot of stealing votes than the other way around
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:National level Democrats aren't saying that much but state level ones are, and you're not seeing it legalized anywhere with a mainly Republican state government. Our state government here in AZ is very solidly Republican. We got medical legalized here with them kicking and screaming all the way. We are preparing a full legalization effort for 2016. If our own people don't gently caress things up we may actually pass it. True to form, the dispensary owners here are loving with the proposition and tryi9ng to get growing rights removed. We now have a lot of dispensary operators who were never part of the efforts before Prop 203 passed, and frankly don't give gently caress all about the average consumer let alone the black market people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
For those that wondered why Sheldon Adelson donated so much out of the blue to fight MMJ in Florida despite supporting it everywhere else, a new gambling package in the shape of three pieces of legislation and a constitutional amendment are presented right now that will open the path for Adelson to start building his resort casinos and breaking the "monopoly on gambling" enjoyed by the Seminole tribe of FL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
So I understand the justification of "The MJ legalization bill was voted for before the budget passed and we are just fulfilling our obligations" but how is the ban on cannabis clubs in DC even possibly legal with the budget restrictions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
DEA warns of stoned rabbits if Utah passes medical marijuana http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/02/dea-warns-of-stoned-rabbits-if-utah-passes-medical-marijuana/?tid=sm_tw
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
A legalization bill was just introduced in the Texas house by David Simpson (R-Longview) and he wrote an editorial, The Christian Case for Drug Law Reform, on the Texas Tribune's blog. I doubt it will go anywhere, especially as it just deregulates "marihuana" entirely rather than create the legal framework for a recreational or medicinal market, but it's nice to see a Republican in Texas openly state that the War on Drugs is a failure. Even if this bill is just ignored this session, the GOP as a whole in Texas is gradually loosening up on weed and I would not be surprised to see a more comprehensive legalization bill pop back up in 2017 or 2019.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:DEA warns of stoned rabbits if Utah passes medical marijuana It's funny, because all of that could just as easily be used as pro-legalization talking points. snorch fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
quote:So I understand the justification of "The MJ legalization bill was voted for before the budget passed and we are just fulfilling our obligations" but how is the ban on cannabis clubs in DC even possibly legal with the budget restrictions? That argument has been bandied about, but probably the easy reply is that the rider says we can't use federal monies to: “enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance". The mayor could just say "we're not reducing penalties", since technically she's further restricting marijuana, in terms of further than last Thursday. It's starting to look like the emergency legislation against cannabis clubs might go through though: Grosso is one of the hardest-core backers of legalization on the council, presented at this weekend's Cannabis Convention all but saying "gently caress Congress", and here's what he said to the Post on Monday: quote:Council member David Grosso (I-At Large), who has advocated for the council to ignore the congressional prohibition and push forward with regulating pot sales, said that in the absence of doing so, he also plans to reluctantly support the mayor’s proposed restrictions. So if we don't have even Grosso on this, it looks like for the time being cannabis is only going to be allowed to be consumed on completely private property like homes, you wouldn't be able to rent a party space at a bar or hotel or banquet hall and serve pot brownies in it even if it's absolutely invite-only and closed to the general public. Invisble Manuel posted:DEA warns of stoned rabbits if Utah passes medical marijuana Dammit, I wanted to post this one. It's one of the best concern-trolling bits from DEA since the famous Colorado "the danger of legal marijuana is that if your dog eats your pot brownies, the cannabis might diminish his ability to vomit up the chocolate and he could die!" 100% true, they actually tried this angle of attack last year: Huffpo: DEA Chief: Please, Think Of The Dogs Before You Legalize Pot quote:Leonhart was referencing a story in USA Today which noted that the effects of marijuana could make it more difficult for a dog to breathe or vomit up a product that could kill them, like butter. The USA Today article noted, however, that on its own "marijuana itself isn't particularly harmful to dogs," and that dogs typically won't eat marijuana by itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:DEA warns of stoned rabbits if Utah passes medical marijuana The DEA agent did have some good points on the negative environmental aspects of illegal grow-ops, namely the deforestation, overuse of fertilizers, and water diversion. All of which would be solved by legal growing facilities. Why he decided to bring up baked bunnies is beyond me. Personally, I would like to go camping and be surrounded by chill rabbits who just want to hang out and eat some of my stash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
The rat says squee posted:The DEA agent did have some good points on the negative environmental aspects of illegal grow-ops, namely the deforestation, overuse of fertilizers, and water diversion. All of which would be solved by legal growing facilities. Why he decided to bring up baked bunnies is beyond me. Personally, I would like to go camping and be surrounded by chill rabbits who just want to hang out and eat some of my stash. How many people were out there warning about how much the scourge of speakeasies and organized bootlegging would increase if prohibition was appealed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Didn't read the article but I don't recall the dea warning of stoned moose up here in AK
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:A legalization bill was just introduced in the Texas house by David Simpson (R-Longview) and he wrote an editorial, The Christian Case for Drug Law Reform, on the Texas Tribune's blog. I doubt it will go anywhere, especially as it just deregulates "marihuana" entirely rather than create the legal framework for a recreational or medicinal market, but it's nice to see a Republican in Texas openly state that the War on Drugs is a failure. Even if this bill is just ignored this session, the GOP as a whole in Texas is gradually loosening up on weed and I would not be surprised to see a more comprehensive legalization bill pop back up in 2017 or 2019. It's a refreshing change though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:How many people were out there warning about how much the scourge of speakeasies and organized bootlegging would increase if prohibition was appealed? I'm hoping this "Why won't someone think of the bunny rabbits?" nonsense is just the death throes of the prohibition movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Welp, today the DC Council voted unanimously to not allow smoking (and presumably vaping/eating/etc) in any place "to which the public is invited". So marijuana growth and use is completely restricted to private property. They did say though that in the coming weeks they'll have amendments to clarify the distinction to make sure people are explicitly allowed to consume in their "greenhouses and garages". Thank goodness, for a minute there I was worried that my friends weren't going to be able to smoke in their greenhouses! No word yet on smoking in your private gazebos, koi ponds, or follies. Not terribly surprising, and Spain-style paid clubs were already not something that 71 would allow for anyway, so this is annoying but not earthshattering. The emergency legislation lasts until this summer, and would have to be deliberately renewed if they want it to keep going. And the blockage of commercial sales could lapse as early as October, unless Congress keeps that in the new budget (which is possible). But we're still holding steady at maybe 60% success here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6239_story.html The real interesting bit, however, is that the Campaign apparently had a gentlemen's agreement with Bowser that they wouldn't be encouraging any ostentatious displays of smoking such as occurred in Colorado. Not having big victory parties was a deliberate decision; the earlier November victory party just involved a lot of alcohol, ironically. But since Bowser is limiting smoking locations, the Campaign has announced that the deal is over, and they'll be engaging in presumably ostentatious displays. As I've been saying all year, this whole thing is just going to keep getting funnier before it gets less funny. Grosso responded by telling folks that if they want to have a smoke-in, they should do it "on the steps of Congress". Not sure if that's an endorsement of the tactic, or just a "hey, don't blame us." quote:“The mayor told me all along she didn’t like the idea of smoke-ins and we were willing to not organize them as a tactic,” Eidinger says. “But it’s on the table now. You can probably count on a decision before April 20, which is usually when these things occur.” TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Can't say I disagree with the people who don't want giant smoke-ins. Seems like that would be a really great way to throw the issue in the face of congresscritters who otherwise may be ambivalent about it. Much better to ease the restrictions a year or so from now, when you can point to stats showing fewer people being needlessly harassed by police and show that the sky hasn't fallen. Plus that's more time for Washington and Colorado's experiments to bear fruit. For now I'm just pretty happy that it's decriminalized, and hoping that some of that sweet district dank may find its way across the Potomac to us poor souls living in NoVA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Don't worry if it's anything like Colorado everyone will ignore that no smoking in public places bit 100% and every time you step outside your door you get to inhale marijuana because the police refuse to waste time ticketing the thousands of people constantly smoking in public. I just want to take a walk with my niece can you put that poo poo out already? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Don't worry if it's anything like Colorado everyone will ignore that no smoking in public places bit 100% and every time you step outside your door you get to inhale marijuana because the police refuse to waste time ticketing the thousands of people constantly smoking in public. I just want to take a walk with my niece can you put that poo poo out already? I haven't seen this in Washington, but I don't spend much time in Seattle proper. (Live and work in South King.) Even as a fan I'd find that annoying at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Don't worry if it's anything like Colorado everyone will ignore that no smoking in public places bit 100% and every time you step outside your door you get to inhale marijuana because the police refuse to waste time ticketing the thousands of people constantly smoking in public. I just want to take a walk with my niece can you put that poo poo out already? The smell may be annoying, but I wouldn't worry too much about your niece. The concentration in the air from someone smoking outside is negligible, exhaust fumes even on a quiet street are probably more of a health concern. Air quality is just plain lovely in populated areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Don't worry if it's anything like Colorado everyone will ignore that no smoking in public places bit 100% and every time you step outside your door you get to inhale marijuana because the police refuse to waste time ticketing the thousands of people constantly smoking in public. I just want to take a walk with my niece can you put that poo poo out already? How is this any worse than smelling tobacco smoke? And what do you expect people to do when there are no cafes or places where you can smoke? Do you really expect people to buy weed, drive half an hour home, smoke up and drive back downtown just to enjoy an afternoon in the park or hanging out at cafes/shops/etc? I mean, I try to be discreet when I smoke outdoors(find a place where there's no one around), but the state has no one to blame but itself for not authorizing cannabis cafes or places to consume. If it was legal to buy alcohol but bars/cafes were strictly banned, there'd be a Hell of a lot of people drinking in public, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:How is this any worse than smelling tobacco smoke? People typically don't like that either. Also most people don't drink during the day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:23
|
|