|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:EDIT: holy poo poo, the Gazette has an entire 4-day special called "Clearing the Haze" with five articles a day all criticizing legalization: http://gazette.com/clearingthehaze http://jimromenesko.com/2015/03/24/morning-report-for-march-24-2015/ quote:I’m told: “Gazette employees have been strongly discouraged from commenting on or sharing opinions about the series. Privately editors have mentioned that public criticism could jeopardize reporters’ jobs.”
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
This is some kind of extremely low-rent William Randolph Hearst deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Well as much as I hate to give the Gazette credit for anything it's nice to see someone finally acknowledge the downsides of legalization. There's a ton of us here in Colorado who voted for it and now regret doing so, but nobody wants to publish anything but the yay all is good society only improves from legalization narrative that gets clicks among the key demo. It's been tough to get anyone to talk about the negatives, much less get a critical article past an editor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
What is it that causes you to regret voting for legalization?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Well as much as I hate to give the Gazette credit for anything it's nice to see someone finally acknowledge the downsides of legalization. There's a ton of us here in Colorado who voted for it and now regret doing so, but nobody wants to publish anything but the yay all is good society only improves from legalization narrative that gets clicks among the key demo. It's been tough to get anyone to talk about the negatives, much less get a critical article past an editor. You're going to need to elaborate on what exactly these negative effects are. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but "Think of all the BAD stuff that's been happening!" isn't exactly a well-formed argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Well as much as I hate to give the Gazette credit for anything it's nice to see someone finally acknowledge the downsides of legalization. There's a ton of us here in Colorado who voted for it and now regret doing so, but nobody wants to publish anything but the yay all is good society only improves from legalization narrative that gets clicks among the key demo. It's been tough to get anyone to talk about the negatives, much less get a critical article past an editor. There were downsides to abolishing slavery for lots of people. Should I have given a gently caress? Drug prohibition immoral and unjust. End of story. I will not rest until it is lawful to use heroin for whatever reason you want and every surviving architect or sympathiser of the drug war is hunted down and thrown to the lions (so egregious are their crimes). The uprising has only just begun. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Well as much as I hate to give the Gazette credit for anything it's nice to see someone finally acknowledge the downsides of legalization. There's a ton of us here in Colorado who voted for it and now regret doing so, but nobody wants to publish anything but the yay all is good society only improves from legalization narrative that gets clicks among the key demo. It's been tough to get anyone to talk about the negatives, much less get a critical article past an editor. Seriously what are these downsides. Are you talking about problems with implementation (taxes, shops etc) or outright things-that-prohibition-is-better-at?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
I too, am interested in knowing the negatives of legalization in Colorado. I do hope that they don't include children or increased use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I do hope that they don't include children or increased use. Norway prohibited skateboards for over a decade because they were worried kids would hurt themselves. Skateboarding among minors and injuries increased after they repealed skateboard prohibition. Doesn't change the fact that skateboard prohibtion was totally illogical. Link: http://www.oslogames.no/fakta/history
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Italy's parliament just initiated a proposal, mostly from the left but with some right-wing backing too, to legalize marijuana. Apparently currently it's decriminalized, with fines and other bureaucratic punishments for possession, but possible jail sentences for growing/distribution. Apparently in 2006 the Berlusconi goverment "rescheduled" weed higher up, putting it in the same criminal category as cocaine and heroin, but that was undone in 2014, apparently since it was causing incarceration rates to spike. The BBC article doesn't give a clear read on how likely this is to pass, but more national bodies openly proposing legalization has to be a good thing: http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-italy-motion-legalize-cannabis-receives-bi-partisan-support-1849824#.VQxIpmKZf1I.twitter
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Norway prohibited skateboards for over a decade because they were worried kids would hurt themselves. Skateboarding among minors and injuries increased after they repealed skateboard prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
BerkerkLurk posted:I imagine they were allowed to market skateboards directly to children, though. The number of kids using cannabis irrelevant to the debate about whether it should be lawful to buy, use, sell cannabis. Just like the number of kids using Pepsi is irrelevant to the debate whether it should be a criminal offence to sell soft drinks. KingEup fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Seriously what are these downsides. The answer is in the url. How long has this stuff been legal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The number of kids using cannabis irrelevant to the debate about whether it should be lawful to buy, use, sell cannabis. Just like the number of kids using Pepsi is irrelevant to the debate whether it should be a criminal offence to sell soft drinks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
quote:No tax windfall from medical, retail sales Smart people knew this would happen. The black market already has a strong supply chain and lower prices. Since police can't tell the difference between taxed weed and untaxed weed of course you aren't going to get a huge windfall. The segment of fuddy duddies too arsed to buy from drug dealers or grow their own aren't going to give a substantial amount of tax revenue to the system. quote:Addressing driver impairment difficult They are working on ways to get more accurate with these drug tests, but this has always been an issue. Even cough or cold medicine has these issues, its up to the officer's training and discretion to determine if a driver is impaired with a legal substance. quote:Regulation still ineffective I kind of agree with this article, I don't like the idea of incorrect potencies and potencies that are too strong which have less manageable effects on the user.They need to work on this so that you get exactly what you pay for and also put a cap on potencies so that people don't get to retarded levels of highness
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I kind of agree with this article, I don't like the idea of incorrect potencies and potencies that are too strong which have less manageable effects on the user.They need to work on this so that you get exactly what you pay for and also put a cap on potencies so that people don't get to retarded levels of highness site fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:put a cap on potencies so that people don't get to retarded levels of highness Go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Part of legalization involves regulation. It was the promise of that regulation that convinced enough voters to allow legalization to take place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Regulation doesn't mean putting arbitrary caps on potency because the idea of someone getting high causes you discomfort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Part of legalization involves regulation. It was the promise of that regulation that convinced enough voters to allow legalization to take place. If regulation means testing batches of edibles and some sampling of plants and making the resulting information clear and prominently labeled, you have a good point. Regulation that simply restricts potency is ridiculous. It's like banning vodka because people can get drunk on it easier than beer. Even Utah with it's 3.2% ABV beer limit will sell you Everclear in a liquor store. Slipknot Hoagie posted:They are working on ways to get more accurate with these drug tests, but this has always been an issue. Even cough or cold medicine has these issues, its up to the officer's training and discretion to determine if a driver is impaired with a legal substance. As you're alluding to, alcohol's statuatory BAC limit with is the exception rather than the rule as far as driving while impaired laws go. It's illegal to drive under the influence of any substance, and most of them do not have simple chemical tests. Cops can do horizontal gaze nystagmus tests, or have you walk in a straight line or stand on one leg - especially when you combine multiple tests the results are very accurate. This kind of testing actually makes a lot more sense than setting an arbitrary number for intoxication when different people react differently, and is not limited to one substance. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:also put a cap on potencies so that people don't get to retarded levels of highness Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
I've never heard anybody say "I'm okay with people getting high, as long as it's not too high."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I've never heard anybody say "I'm okay with people getting high, as long as it's not too high." Ties into a popular right-wing statement: "see, with beer you can just drink a little bit and get drunk, but with marijuana you smoke it and get really high, there's no way to use it without getting stoned out of your gourd."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I've never heard anybody say "I'm okay with people getting high, as long as it's not too high." Then you haven't spent enough time around drug legalization concern trolls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:3.2% ABV beer limit What. The. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Then you haven't spent enough time around drug legalization concern trolls. I had a feeling someone would pull out the old "concern trolling" chestnut, the fact is you are heavily biased and can't discuss the topic objectively. The articles in the link above detail people checking themselves into drug rehab programs because they are getting ill from habitually using concentrated THC products, which would be analogous to people taking straight shots of Everclear. Those spirits are meant to be diluted for use in mixed drinks and not drunk directly. Some states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania) do forbid the sale of high proof liquors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I had a feeling someone would pull out the old "concern trolling" chestnut, the fact is you are heavily biased and can't discuss the topic objectively. The articles in the link above detail people checking themselves into drug rehab programs because they are getting ill from habitually using concentrated THC products, which would be analogous to people taking straight shots of Everclear. Those spirits are meant to be diluted for use in mixed drinks and not drunk directly. Some states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania) do forbid the sale of high proof liquors. Go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
KillHour posted:What. The. gently caress. edit: Slipknot Hoagie posted:Some states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania) do forbid the sale of high proof liquors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:To be clear, 3.2 is by weight, not volume, and the limit only applies to stores and businesses with beer only licenses. That really doesn't make it much better. I don't want to go out to dinner at a place without a full bar and have to drink Coors. Even at a hockey game around here, I can get Aviator Red or some other craft (if not micro) brew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
KillHour posted:What. The. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I had a feeling someone would pull out the old "concern trolling" chestnut, the fact is you are heavily biased and can't discuss the topic objectively. The articles in the link above detail people checking themselves into drug rehab programs because they are getting ill from habitually using concentrated THC products, which would be analogous to people taking straight shots of Everclear. Those spirits are meant to be diluted for use in mixed drinks and not drunk directly. Some states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania) do forbid the sale of high proof liquors. Can you think of another way to get people not to ingest unhealthy amounts of substances besides passing laws? vvv fair enough Murmur Twin fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Can you think of another way to get people not to poison themselves with unhealthy amounts of substances besides passing laws? The phrasing of this question lends credence to the idea that potent weed is poisonous, which is demonstrably false.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Quote != edit
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Can you think of another way to get people not to ingest unhealthy amounts of substances besides passing laws? I'm also going to point out that passing laws to restrict the sale of those substances is what got us here in the first place. They obviously don't work very well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm also going to point out that passing laws to restrict the sale of those substances is what got us here in the first place. They obviously don't work very well. Just for the record - I agree. I was more addressing that to Slipknot Hoagie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
It's not illegal anywhere to sell 190 proof liquor either. The states listed just don't buy 190 proof everclear for their distribution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm also going to point out that passing laws to restrict the sale of those substances is what got us here in the first place. They obviously don't work very well. Laws that restrict sales are usually effective as long as there's a legal alternative (even if it's technically inferior in quality).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I had a feeling someone would pull out the old "concern trolling" chestnut, the fact is you are heavily biased and can't discuss the topic objectively. The articles in the link above detail people checking themselves into drug rehab programs because they are getting ill from habitually using concentrated THC products, which would be analogous to people taking straight shots of Everclear. Those spirits are meant to be diluted for use in mixed drinks and not drunk directly. Some states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania) do forbid the sale of high proof liquors. Yeah in MN we have the buy *gasp* 150 proof Everclear instead of the 190 stuff, still infinitely more deadly and harmful than any marijuana concentrate can possibly be. That's what seems to be missing from your "reasonable concerns" about marijuana legalization, some sense of the relative harms of the substances we're talking about here. Limiting spirits to a measly 75% pure alcohol, while arbitrary, is not the same as putting limits on weed THC content.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
KillHour posted:What. The. gently caress. You think that's bad? Several states had limits like that well into the 50s and 60s, with no exception for like specialty spirits/liquor stores. If I remember right Kansas was ne of them, and Mississippi didn't allow alcohol sales at all until 1966 (and Oklahoma not til 1959).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
KillHour posted:What. The. gently caress. You should see Oklahoma, it's hilarious: Wikipedia posted:Any beverage containing more than 3.2% alcohol by weight or 4% alcohol by volume, that is, most liquors, wines, and typical beer, may only be sold in licensed liquor stores at room temperature.[1] It literally makes a difference in Oklahoma whether your beer is cold or not. On one level, I see what they're getting at, because cold = immediate consumption and they don't want you drinking strong beer while driving or in the parking lot or whatever. Kind of like how in some states the food sales tax is waived for most groceries, but not "heated and ready to eat" stuff like rotisserie chicken. That said, it's not like drinking 3.2% ABV while driving is great either, or that being room temp is going to slow someone down that much in their quest to kill off a 12-pack of 5% beer. It makes things a pain for distributors, I'd imagine, since they have to stock two different products in the state. Also, last time I was there Oklahoma had this law where a liquor store could sell only alcohol. No smokes, no Solo cups, no horoscope scrolls, nothing but alcohol. So all over OKC you'd see strip mall storefront liquor stores, and infallibly next to it a "Party Store" that's a tiny place that sells cups, ice, tonic water, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:52
|
|