|
Aliquid posted:That's the 60-40 poo poo, right? Yup. 58.4% yes last time, iirc.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I really want a THC slurpy now I've been dying to point out it's spelled loving Slurpee. My marijuana-addled brain still handles basic spelling better than these concern trolls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:MA opposition getting just silly. See also "You can't call it marijuana legalization because dispensaries will sell edibles and products that are over 2.5% THC which by my definition is hashish" in deliberate ignorance of history and the text of the ballot question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
I really wanted Obama to do it. Do you think it would still taint his legacy if he legalized it as the last minute?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I really wanted Obama to do it. Do you think it would still taint his legacy if he legalized it as the last minute? You mean suddenly create him a legacy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I really wanted Obama to do it. Do you think it would still taint his legacy if he legalized it as the last minute? http://fortune.com/2016/04/06/dea-decision-marijuana-reschedule/ It's possible that in the coming few months, he'll reschedule it. Probably not to the schedule everyone would ideally hope for, but at least to make it so that it could be more easily researched.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Hold up, isn't it that one of two AZ campaigns gave up, and the MPP one is going strong and the losing grassroots one is pledging to undermine the MPP one? Report from on the ground in AZ. AZFMR did, indeed, give up. A lot of people put a lot of work into that one. Many of their supporters are pissed at the MPP because of a perceived sell-out to moneyed interests. I suspect the MPP effort may come up short because in part of this intramural conflict. Time will tell. I donated a bunch to the AZFMR effort. Despite having been a very long time MPP supporter, I won't be giving them a dime. I don't plan to ever, though I hate to say never. For me it's because they went out of their way to NOT do anything about the overall status of the draconian pot laws in this state. Everything other than possession of an ounce and growing up to six plants remains a felony. They had plenty of feedback to that effect before their proposition was set in stone, and they went with gratifying the dispensary owners. You never know, I might even vote for it, but it's a hard call. Many, though, are on the loving war path. Can MPP pass their prop without the support of the bohemian weed activists? Possibly. However, rumor has it that the narcs have a major pile of cash they intend to use against the MPP, too. This will become more interesting. It's a moot point if Trump gets elected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
I'm not young (30) but I guess you can consider me one of those people who has an instinctive dislike for Hilary Clinton the presidential candidate. Her answer to marijuana legalization is evasive and is as directed at people who oppose marijuana legalization as it is at those who favor it, and it so perfectly stands squarely in the middle of them and gives each side hope that she'll come around to their position eventually that you just know it's a position that's been crafted for her by someone on her campaign staff. Her only criticism of marijuana prohibition is mild and brief ("we shouldn't arrest people for marijuana use"). What does that mean? Should we instead direct them to mandatory treatment programs and, if they refuse, then jail them? Yes, this stance of hers is relatively more progressive, but it's still weak. I'm not saying to be provocative or offensive, but it's curious how an issue like gay marriage can become part of the Democratic party platform and yet most Democratic politicians are very resistant to taking up favoring marijuana legalization (the chairperson of the DNC was fervently and proudly against marijuana legalization in any form up until a few weeks ago when she was suddenly open to medical marijuana) which the majority of Democratic voters favor. More harm has been done to society and to individuals because of marijuana prohibition than has stemmed from gay people not being granted state marriage licensees like heterosexuals, yet for liberals/Democrats the latter issue was more urgent (and used up lots of political capital) than stopping the harms that come to people, communities and our law system from continued marijuana prohibition. Is it because wealthy liberal elites were on board for gay marriage (the same for journalists at large) and were willing to advocate for it but aren't particularly interested in marijuana legalization? objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:
It's really not curious in the least. Smoking something isn't a human right the way that simply being able to live is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
That's true but punishing people for using marijuana is just barely less stupid than it was to criminalize being gay. At least with gay rights all of the Dem politicians rushed over to support it when the opinion polls ticked above 50% but with the marijuana issue they have to be dragged kicking and screaming over to supporting it even though like 60% of the population supports legalization now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That's true but punishing people for using marijuana is just barely less stupid than it was to criminalize being gay. At least with gay rights all of the Dem politicians rushed over to support it when the opinion polls ticked above 50% but with the marijuana issue they have to be dragged kicking and screaming over to supporting it even though like 60% of the population supports legalization now. The basic, universal psychological need to love and be loved and the complex of customs and laws surrounding it: basically the same as your right to get stoned. Edit: I get what you're saying. As far as making logical sense it's very similar logic, but if you can't see why it takes on a very different level of urgency and attracts a differently intensity of activism I don't know what to tell you. Except that recreational chemicals just don't attract the same level of attention and boat-rocking as central, fundamental elements of society that basically everyone can relate to. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Well I did say "that's true" in response to a Fishmech post, not something I just do for the hell of it, so yes I do recognize that. Im just saying that it's absurd that Dems have to be pressured so hard into supporting something that like 75% of their base supports. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
I'll also point out that legalizing medical marijuana on its own still means you've got laws on the books to punish most people who use marijuana. If a place only has medical, you can't use marijuana freely without going through varying levels of hoops - and even if you go through them you might still be hosed over by the cops anyway. And there's a lot of people who only strongly support legalizing medical marijuana, only strongly push for that, even though they wouldn't put up a fuss if recreational was also legal - so "60% are ok with legalizing marijuana" doesn't mean the same thing as "60% actively want recreational marijuana legalized", you know? To go back to the gay rights thing - a large chunk of the momentum for that is court rulings that gay rights need to be protected. There aren't any courts ruling that marijuana illegalization is unconstitutional or even against other laws!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's really not curious in the least. Smoking something isn't a human right the way that simply being able to live is. Bodily autonomy should be a human right, even if it currently isn't in your book, and smoking is part of that. That said, the differences in activist enthusiasm and political will between the two are completely understandable for lots of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Bodily autonomy should be a human right, even if it currently isn't in your book, and smoking is part of that. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Bodily autonomy should be a human right, even if it currently isn't in your book, and smoking is part of that. Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you can do anything you want. Also stop crying, I'm helping to lobby for legalization in this state for christ's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Just spitballing, but I think a lot of it comes down to class issues too. Because the "white" middle/upper-middle class is much more accommodating of gay people, that demographic has a lot more out gays both from within it and those who move into those circles because of marginalization in poorer/minority communities. So laws limiting gays has a direct impact on people that the politically/socially influential care about. While white upper-middle class people probably know tons of folks who've casually used weed or use it sometimes and it's a slightly naughty secret, most probably don't know people that are getting shaken down by cops or having to show up in court over a gram, so it's not of direct concern. Combine that with a general Othering it can lead folks to say "well, with weed illegal it gives the cops a few extra tools to Al Capone some thug who dodges them on cocaine and gun charges, they can nab him on weed and work out the rest." Again a lot of this is just theorizing, though I have had reasonably progressive friends oppose legalization with the "pfft, nobody actually gets in serious trouble for weed, the cops will give you a wink and make you throw your baggie in the gutter, nobody gets busted unless they're really up to ill poo poo and then they deserve it anyway."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you can do anything you want. Also stop crying, I'm helping to lobby for legalization in this state for christ's sake. Who is crying? I said I understand why it's not as big a deal to most people as gay rights are, I only disagreed with your argument that it's not a human right. It is, even if it's unrecognized by the many states that love to flagrantly violate it. Your first statement there is just worthless, though, no one here is arguing that rights are absolute in all contexts or "you can do anything you want". It's as hollow as claiming that marriage rights "don't mean you can marry whoever you want", which is, yes, strictly true, but pretty irrelevant to the issue of gay rights in the exact same way your statement is irrelevant to the issue of drug rights. I'm not trying to diminish your efforts to push for legalization. twodot posted:I think it's less that smoking is a part of bodily autonomy, and more that "not being in prison" is a part of bodily autonomy, and putting people into prison over smoking in private areas absolutely should be considered a human rights violation. Clearly I understand that people have certain priorities, but it's also reasonable to argue those priorities are hosed up. The fact that many drug laws exist rather explicitly as a vessel for destroying unwanted subcultures and preventing the spread of "undesirable" cultural norms and thought patterns, which are arguably recognized as human rights already, I'd say it's more than just that. But you're right about the fact that in addition to the blatant disregard for the unrecognized right to bodily autonomy they tend to violate a good number of other explicitly recognized rights as well. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tomangell/status/742163524386967552
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Noted Shitlord Kevin Sabet('s local franchise), folks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
That guy. There's really no point in arguing with someone being maliciously disingenuous. He needs the gently caress beaten out of him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you can do anything you want. Also stop crying, I'm helping to lobby for legalization in this state for christ's sake. What exactly should you not have the right to do to your own body?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Day Man posted:What exactly should you not have the right to do to your own body? All those fake weed strains that barely get you high and extremely gently caress up your body should be illegal. They're useless. All sorts of possible substances should be illegal or heavily restricted because there's simply better things to do instead. Here's something that should be illegal: that solution that's basically just bleach that people are sold and told to put into their bodies to cure things. That's actively harmful and doesn't even have any positive side effect. Or all the various fake medical things out there like homeopathy and other such things. I don't care if you've been tricked into thinking you should take them, we shouldn't be allowing them to be sold. If you want to drink water, you've got a dang faucet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:All those fake weed strains that barely get you high and extremely gently caress up your body should be illegal. They're useless. All sorts of possible substances should be illegal or heavily restricted because there's simply better things to do instead. Why apply criminal penalties to the consumption of those things? I understand banning the manufacture, marketing, and transfer of, say, medicinal bleach. But there's not a lot of use in imprisoning the dumbass at the end of the line drinking it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why apply criminal penalties to the consumption of those things? I understand banning the manufacture, marketing, and transfer of, say, medicinal bleach. But there's not a lot of use in imprisoning the dumbass at the end of the line drinking it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why apply criminal penalties to the consumption of those things? I understand banning the manufacture, marketing, and transfer of, say, medicinal bleach. But there's not a lot of use in imprisoning the dumbass at the end of the line drinking it. Who said anything about consumption? It's rather hard for you to synthesize fake weed variant #4594 in the comfort of your own home. You're still illegalizing a substance and you're still "violating bodily autonomy" by preventing access to the thing in question. There's plenty of regular medical drugs and food dyes and all sorts of other things that are banned for sale in modern countries. You usually can't get in trouble for mere possession of them, merely intent to sell them onwards, especially in products/foods. Sometimes even selling those stocks or using them up in something else is still OK, just not making more of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:What if there were a drug like alcohol where the only difference was it was undetectable to any sort of breathalyzer. The only reason to take it would be to be drunk in a place you're not supposed to so it seems like it should obviously be criminal to do so to me. To me it seems like it's perfectly reasonable for a society to decide to criminalize willfully taking chemicals in the abstract even if the implementation we have in the US is horrendous. Principles like "you have the right to do whatever with your body" only go so far and I'm not going to support them unconditionally in the face of externalities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Being as we're discussing hypotheticals, what if there was a magic booze where the only difference was it was undetectable to any sort of breathalyzer and it didn't box your liver? Would the reduced personal damage (that one can mitigate anyway by not drinking) outweigh the social damage that cannot be mitigated by any victim? (There are actually some alcohols that may be that 'magic booze', they're more potent actors on GABA receptors, and because of the smaller doses they cause less peripheral organ damage. We don't know the full story though because nobody would dare sell them as a 'safer alcohol' in the current climate and thus there's not much in the way of studies.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's really not curious in the least. Smoking something isn't a human right the way that simply being able to live is. Gay people already had all manner of civil protections and legal rights, any harm coming to them (a minority of the population mind you...like 2%) from an inability to legally wed was severely less than the harm that results from continued marijuana prohibition (arrests, ruined job prospects, violence in the black market, etc.) So yes, it's fair to ask why the priorities of liberals and Democrats are such as they are. Now they're spending precious political capital on standing up for transgender people to use bathrooms of the gender they identify as...why not use that political capital on marijuana legalization? Why are things such that more Democrats favor transgender people using the bathrooms they prefer than ending marijuana prohibition?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Being as we're discussing hypotheticals, what if there was a magic booze where the only difference was it was undetectable to any sort of breathalyzer and it didn't box your liver?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I see very little difference between being persecuted for having a minority plant preference and having a different sexual preference.fishmech posted:All those fake weed strains that barely get you high and extremely gently caress up your body should be illegal. You need to elaborate on this. In my neck it is unlawful to sell raw milk. It is not however unlawful to possess or drink raw milk. Is that the type of illegal you mean? KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Gay people already had all manner of civil protections and legal rights, I'm going to stop you right here because it's still completely legal to fire someone, kick them out of a home or never rent/sell to them in the first place, and so on, just for being gay, in tons of states today. You don't know anything about what you're trying to talk about. The only federal "civil protection" they'd had since 2003 had been the right to not literally go to jail just for having gay sex, which until that supreme court ruling had still been illegal and enforced in multiple states. And being able to marry confers a ton of rights and privileges from preferable tax rates to medial decision making and more. It's not a small thing. Since you're apparently woefully ignorant of gay rights in this country, here's a comprehensive map of places with any protection for being gay in the workplace, for one example:   Or anti-discrimination laws for housing:   (although in some of these states, some cities or counties may deign to provide protection) So, "all manner of civil protections and legal rights", really? KingEup posted:I see very little difference between being persecuted for having a minority plant preference and having a different sexual preference. Then you're not very bright, I'm sorry. Maybe if people who smoked weed lived their lives constantly smoking way with no way to stop... What part of it should be illegal to sell or manufacture don't you get?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Gay people already had all manner of civil protections and legal rights, any harm coming to them (a minority of the population mind you...like 2%) from an inability to legally wed was severely less than the harm that results from continued marijuana prohibition (arrests, ruined job prospects, violence in the black market, etc.) So yes, it's fair to ask why the priorities of liberals and Democrats are such as they are. Now they're spending precious political capital on standing up for transgender people to use bathrooms of the gender they identify as...why not use that political capital on marijuana legalization? Why are things such that more Democrats favor transgender people using the bathrooms they prefer than ending marijuana prohibition? You know you can be fired or evicted from your housing for being gay? Boy I'd hate to think that people put basic civil rights of individuals over the rights of some dudes to use drugs. Get the gently caress out. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Having sex with who you want and putting whatever you want into your body should be protected by law. I don't understand why it has to be either or. Why does one have to be more important?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Now they're spending precious political capital on standing up for transgender people to use bathrooms of the gender they identify as...why not use that political capital on marijuana legalization? Why are things such that more Democrats favor transgender people using the bathrooms they prefer than ending marijuana prohibition? You do know that gay and trans people don't have a choice on where and when they're gay or trans, right? Even if weed usage being illegal is bullshit you can still control where and when you use it. You could at least bring up how weed criminalisation does indeed lead to discrimination against black Americans but that comes down to institutional racism which is pervasive despite the 14th amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Having sex with who you want and putting whatever you want into your body should be protected by law. I don't understand why it has to be either or. Why does one have to be more important? There is a bit of crossover.  But more seriously the 14th amendment covers equality, it says nothing about the right to ingest things. In fact marijuana was most likely criminalised in order to discriminate against immigrants who used it recreationally. So thank racism for that one too!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Having sex with who you want and putting whatever you want into your body should be protected by law. I don't understand why it has to be either or. Why does one have to be more important? Because you shouldn't be able to put whatever you want in your body, while being able to simply live a normal life regardless of who you like is a human right? You have to be pretty dense to not get why one is a whole lot more important than another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I never said anything about the fourth amendment. I just said people can care about gay rights and drug rights equally. They don't have to pick a side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because you shouldn't be able to put whatever you want in your body, while being able to simply live a normal life regardless of who you like is a human right? You have to be pretty dense to not get why one is a whole lot more important than another. With the exception of antibiotics, I believe you should. Even if it's bleach. And giving those two subjects relative priority makes no sense - they are entirely unrelated and progress in one does not hurt the other at all. That's like saying "What do you like better, the color green or the number 7?" KillHour fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:There is a bit of crossover.   (Both thanks to the NY Times.) Psychedelics were mostly the counterculture panic, but the big three of the Harrison Act were "can you imagine a world where immigrants aren't working at optimal efficiency, lower class blacks are bulletproof, and Asians could tempt white women into their dens of inequity  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:19
|
|