|
Any legal barriers to this? http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/365058-california-state-senator-to-propose-statewide-net-neutrality-laws
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
It was honestly my first thought when I heard the news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
I think the big hosed up gop tax bill at one point had a provision barring states from doing it, but that bit may not survive conference if they ever manage to produce a bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Slurps Mad Rips posted:They’re huge magnets. There have actually been a number of studies done on this problem in Colorado since legalization. You can find several papers on google scholar, here's one from this year: https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2017/wp17-19.pdf The results are generally consistent: Commercial marijuana dispensary density is not or even inversely correlated with neighborhood crime. This may seem counter-intuitive at first, given the risks of having large sums of cash on location that have been described. However, everybody knows this risk, and as a result shopkeepers and law enforcement compensate by increasing their security footprint. Dispensary owners don't want trouble on their block, and they can afford to pay for security systems like cameras and armed guards that discourage adjacent low-level crime. Some studies have however found an increase in crime in areas nearby neighborhoods with commercial retail, but it is so far inconclusive and often reflects an "increase in marijuana related" incidents. I.E. people are buying weed and then getting busted smoking in public. tl;dr. Despite the apparent risks there is no evidence retail marijuana increases crime, and it may even reduce crime within the immediate area due to an increase in security around the shop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/dec/13/washington-will-keep-net-neutrality-in-state-if-fc/ GODDAMMIT SACRAMENTO THEY'RE GONNA BEAT US TO IT
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/dec/13/washington-will-keep-net-neutrality-in-state-if-fc/ Scott Wiener has already said that he's going to introduce a Net Neutrality bill in California when the state legislature reconvenes next month. http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20171214-senator-wiener-introduce-net-neutrality-legislation-california
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Read today that a ballot measure is going to go up to a vote to make commercial property exempt from Prop 13. Any chance of that being passable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Read today that a ballot measure is going to go up to a vote to make commercial property exempt from Prop 13. Any chance of that being passable? I don't see anything like that on the Secretary of State website.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
This is what I saw about it last week: https://t.co/6ZPRKFZJ2n
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:This is what I saw about it last week: https://t.co/6ZPRKFZJ2n Yeah, that's the one. Just filed, no signatures or anything yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
A big reason the weed legalization process is so hosed in California is that there was language in the bill that said that there would be county/municipal control, but that counties/municipalities needed to establish their codes by a certain date or marijuana policy in their jurisdiction would revert to the state law. The timeframe was really short, and most places decided they didn't have time to study the issue and develop good codes for their jurisdiction, so they just opted for a "ban now and rethink later" policy because you don't need to study a problem to ban it, and that way they got to keep control of cannabis regulation. California is really good at doing the right thing in the wrongest way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Yeah the same thing happened with medical. Local government is usually busy, poor, and conflict averse, so it's up to our lovely state government to make things happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
How do we make it better lads
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
Take over the state government and make it less lovely, I guess? Who's up for primarying bad Dems?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:How do we make it better lads Wait for the seas to rise and flood the central valley.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Maybe a good series of storms could do it, like in 1861-1862.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Well, if the global climate prognosticators simulations are correct, the central valley will be gone in 50 years. Maybe less. Maybe more. But so will Bangkok, Tokyo, New York, pretty much all the coastal cities. And then the pacific northwest is overdue for a massive earthquake so that will happen sooner or later and it will destroy all the cities up there. Then Montana might blow up, that's not for sure or anything. But the PNW, that's a definite. Flooding it a definite unless we stop the climate change very very quickly. Should be an interesting 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Flooding it a definite unless we stop the climate change very very quickly. That's probably not going to happen, despite our best efforts. Do any cities have any kind of seawall plan or anything in place to deal with this, or are they really all just ignoring it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:That's probably not going to happen, despite our best efforts. Do any cities have any kind of seawall plan or anything in place to deal with this, or are they really all just ignoring it? What can they do if the ocean rises 30 feet? Or was that 30 meters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:What can they do if the ocean rises 30 feet? I don't know, but Ż\_(ツ)_/Ż is not really a plan. "The ocean will rise 30 feet and Alameda will become uninhabitable" is at least a plan. "We'll build a 10 foot wall and that'll cover us for 10 years" is at least a plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:I don't know, but Ż\_(ツ)_/Ż is not really a plan. "The ocean will rise 30 feet and Alameda will become uninhabitable" is at least a plan. "We'll build a 10 foot wall and that'll cover us for 10 years" is at least a plan. What if we make it illegal to measure rising sea levels? That should fix everything, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Sundae posted:What if we make it illegal to measure rising sea levels? That should fix everything, right? when tape measures are outlawed, only outlaws will have tape measures
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:when tape measures are outlawed, only outlaws will have tape measures Stop quoting my Lincoln Chafee State of the Union fanfic please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Well, if the global climate prognosticators simulations are correct, the central valley will be gone in 50 years. Maybe less. Maybe more. But so will Bangkok, Tokyo, New York, pretty much all the coastal cities. A few things. I haven't seen mainstream climate models predicting a flooded Central Valley in 50 years. That kind of rise doesn't seem likely this century and anyway models are models. Barring a dramatic "tipping point" moment that starts a cascade (oceanic methane escaping, the Arctic and Antactic albedo dropping below a certain critical point, a massive plant die off, etc.), the coastal inundation will be a gradual process spanning decades and, in the short term at least, cities can be protected by dikes and levees the way places like the Netherlands already are. It's too late to "stop" climate change, but policy makers (Trump aside) are taking it far more seriously than when I was a kid and there's a lot we can do to slow its speed and mitigate it's damage if we actually try. Second, there's no such thing as being "overdue" for earthquakes and eruptions. They happen when they happen and in some places they happen worse and more often than others. If they happen frequently enough, we can start computing probabilities, but geological processes run on cycles that last millions of years and we don't have anything like the number of data points we'd need to understand the complexities of those cycles or where we are on them. That you are "certain" the Pacific Northwest will get a devastating quake soon tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. Seismology is like meteorology but slower and murkier with less data and sketchier models. If we still can't be certain when it will rain next month, imagine how much harder it is to predict "storms" forming miles underground in conditions we're only beginning to understand. As for "Montana" exploding, if you mean the Yellowstone caldera (which is actually mostly in Wyoming), that's a huge system that builds and releases energy on a very long cycle. The next eruption could start next week or in a million years. We just don't know. It's quite possible that some of the disasters you predicted will happen and probable that we'll be hit with disasters neither of us predicted, but don't go acting like you have a crystal ball.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
The PNW has had huge earthquakes every 300 years or so. It's been 350 years since the last one. It could have happened 100 years ago and been early but it's late now and it is going to happen. It's just a matter of when. This is not an if or a maybe it's a when. It could be in 100 years. It could be happening right now. But it will happen. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one Waltzing Along fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:A few things. I haven't seen mainstream climate models predicting a flooded Central Valley in 50 years. That kind of rise doesn't seem likely this century and anyway models are models. Barring a dramatic "tipping point" moment that starts a cascade (oceanic methane escaping, the Arctic and Antactic albedo dropping below a certain critical point, a massive plant die off, etc.), the coastal inundation will be a gradual process spanning decades and, in the short term at least, cities can be protected by dikes and levees the way places like the Netherlands already are. It's too late to "stop" climate change, but policy makers (Trump aside) are taking it far more seriously than when I was a kid and there's a lot we can do to slow its speed and mitigate it's damage if we actually try. its a joke, nerd
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:its a joke, nerd Have you seen the climate change thread recently? Poe's law is in full effect here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
quote:It is possible to quibble with that number. Recurrence intervals are averages, and averages are tricky: ten is the average of nine and eleven, but also of eighteen and two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:You know, you could solve this problem with a loving confidence interval, guys. Just calculate the standard deviation and you can determine the window with 95% accuracy. It'll probably be a fairly wide window given the small number of data points, but you don't need to pretend that the average is useless and it could come in a million years. If anyone is interested, you can use this tool to see how California would be affected by Sea Level Rise: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ One neat cause of climate change apathy has been assuming that all of our risk is normally distributed and doesn't have any skewness or kurtosis. But in my opinion, a 5-95 confidence interval on SLR by 2060 would be somewhere around 1.5 - 5ft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:tl;dr. Despite the apparent risks there is no evidence retail marijuana increases crime, and it may even reduce crime within the immediate area due to an increase in security around the shop. That's good then. I had the worst kind of bias, given every single dispensary in Santa Ana was shut down in a very small amount of time because they were all shady as hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Slurps Mad Rips posted:That's good then. I had the worst kind of bias, given every single dispensary in Santa Ana was shut down in a very small amount of time because they were all shady as hell. Yeah, unlicensed dispensaries have been popping up and getting shut down for years and some of them have done worse than just sell legal weed. It's the sort of poo poo that can happen when cities create a gray area where dispensaries are legal but not permitted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Now that CHIP funding is dead. How long is the children's program for California going to last?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:40
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:If anyone is interested, you can use this tool to see how California would be affected by Sea Level Rise: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ Oh, thanks, that's really handy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
speak of the devil my dope unlicensed santa ana dispensary got shut down just in the last day but then just as I left I got a text about a "prop 64 compliant" dispensary just a couple miles up. I'm sure the unlicensed one will pop back up at some point, it had the best quality and service  god bless california i'm hoping most of the places that get recreational licenses aren't just overpriced poo poo for clueless rich bougie old OC whites
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
There are dispensaries every block in Santa Ana. If you are having trouble finding one just look up and there will be a billboard telling you where to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
god bless our weed laws without them dealers would be out of work, but instead we got dudes openly slinging at the rosa parks/willowbrook metro station, literally just shouting like carnival barkers that they have weed and their price per ounce and still old church ladies give me the side-eye for knocking back a couple airline shots
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Now that CHIP funding is dead. How long is the children's program for California going to last? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-chip-reauthorization-20171130-story.html quote:The program has been running on fumes since October, with state and federal governments relying on reserves to keep it going. If Congress doesn’t reauthorize it by the end of this month, states will start dropping kids from the program, rolling back benefits or cutting other services to make up for the lost federal dollars. California is legally committed to keep the program going until late 2019, but the loss of federal funding — it received $2.4 billion for the program in fiscal 2016 — would blow a huge hole in the state’s budget. They legally have to keep it going until 2019 but without funds it will be a shell of it's former self.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/943607886487457793
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
My mail-order pot tea place, kikoko.com, just sent me mail warning that prices would be going up because taxes, and they will have to stop mail-order Jan 1. Fortunately, one of my dispensaries carries the stuff, because it doesn't taste as bad as tinctures and can be comforting. What's the regulation like on delivery services? Can towns ban dispensaries from delivering within their city limits?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
You're not really supposed to drink tinctures. They're for external application.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:28
|
|