|
Legal marijuana is doomed in Vermont this year. The state senate passed a full legalization bill, but the Vermont House has pretty much entirely rejected that bill. A crucial house committee at first seemed to reject full legalization but was leaning towards more decriminalization, and then it turned out they weren't even down with more decimalization either and by a vote of 6 to 5 only voted to call for the establishment of a marijuana advisory commission that will study legalization.
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
The fundamental problem basically remains that partaking of cannabis for recreational purposes, as common as it is, remains culturally taboo in the West. It's not what "respectable" people do. Respectable people instead hit up happy-hour after work and consume alcohol to relief their stress. The people who hold power in the USA overwhelmingly took part in the drug war and were ideologically raised under it. The culture itself has to change (i.e become more accepting of individuals responsibly using cannabis as a recreational aid) before the laws start to change nationally. Meanwhile I always cringe when the only arguments presented for marijuana legalization have to do with the substance's medical utility or the bad drug war externalities, and rarely have to do with the glaring fact that the minuscule harm the drug can cause a few addictive-personality types is outweighed by the overwhelming pleasure and happiness it can bring to the masses. You see legalization advocates try to dodge questions like "would use increase under legalization?" It might, to be honest, and it would be good if it did because cannabis is awesome and more people should have legal and affordable access to it.
objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Some disheartening news on the legalization front. So Vermont decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana in 2013. Some months ago Vermont's state senate voted to fully legalize marijuana. Its outgoing Governor (who had signed the decrim bill) publicly supported the measure. If successful this would have been the first state legalization of cannabis by lawmakers. It looked like the proposed law had a good chance of passing. This past week the measure was taken up the Vermont House and soundly defeated. This full story about the failure of the measure is worth reading. https://www.leafly.com/news/headlines/crash-and-burn-in-burlington-how-legalization-failed-in-vermont I find this part interesting: quote:House Majority Leader Sarah Copeland Hanzas said legislators never heard a groundswell of support for legalization from their constituents. Without that, she said, interest among most members for tackling the topic was lukewarm at best. I don't buy that "people aren't ready" but it appears there really wasn't much public support for legalization in that state (as in enough to pressure the legislatures to pass it.) I wonder what can account for the difference between the State senate and House on the issue though. Kevin Sabet was gloating on twitter.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Unlike Vermont, at least Massachusetts allows for binding ballot measures, and (as might've been mentioned in this thread) one is slated for November 2016 on election day for that state that would legalize cannabis. But the state's top officials (in a show of bipartisan union) have been loudly campaigning against the measure. And now they've filed a lawsuit based on the claim that the proposed measure is not "honest." http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/05/baker_walsh_anti_marijuana_group_to_blast_pot_ballot_measure
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
A very good article about over-regulation as a tactic of crypto-prohibitionists. http://blog.norml.org/2016/05/09/reefer-madness-2-0-over-regulation/ My comment: quote:Thank you so much for this perspicacious article that succinctly clarifies the annoying role these drug policy “experts” play in continuing the stigmatization of marijuana and, therefore, its continued prohibition. Those people (Kleiman, Caulkins, and Kilmer, perhaps others?) relentlessly argue that the only acceptable legalization models are ones where the government either controls the production or heavily taxes it as to discourage consumption. Kilmer's proposal to states that want to legalize to take the middle road: https://twitter.com/BeauKilmer/status/722793527277592576 In my humble opinion the goal of ending marijuana prohibition should also be to end stigmatization of marijuana, and the above policy suggestion that labels selling cannabis like alcohol as right next to "extreme" goes against this goal. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 07:57 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:e: nope I guess I misread in this case I mean this is absurd: quote:According to Kleiman, this would be his perfect system: “If you want to buy (marijuana), you should sign up as a buyer, you should probably take some kind of minimal test like a driving test to make sure you know what you’re talking about and then you should be asked to set for yourself a purchase quota on, say, a monthly basis. How many joint-equivalents a month do you want to use? Give us a number. Every time you make a purchase, that purchase will be recorded against that quota. And if you bought as much this month as you said you wanted to be able to buy this month, the clerk will say “I’m sorry the order was refused.”
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
BowreeBookstore posted:There hasn't been a lot of great press over the last few days. The prohibitionist talking points seem pretty coordinated across states and are mostly focused on higher THC content and fearmongering over impaired driving. Both are pretty potent arguments to have floating around for people who might be on the fence but not particularly interested in looking into the issue. Especially bad is that a number of places are subtly implying the AAA survey in Washington showed a two times increase in fatal accidents after legalization period. That could be a nasty misconception to have out there. That's how I initially read that AAA survey in Washington as well, but what it actually said is more subtle and nowhere near as problematic, because the claim is only for fatal crashes involving marijuana. http://www.boston.com/cars/news-and...uNNL/story.html quote:The survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found fatal crashes involving marijuana more than doubled in Washington after marijuana was legalized for recreational use in late 2012. quote:AAA found 49 drivers involved in fatal crashes had marijuana in their system in 2013. That number jumped to 106 drivers in 2014, an increase from 8 to 17 percent of all fatal crashes. Some of these drivers also had alcohol or other drugs in their system at the time of the crash. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 01:07 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Does anyone know what's going with DC? It's legal to possess and grow, but you can't legally sell, which means it's kind of hard to buy at a reasonable price. Some DC budget autonomy rule (which was passed by referendum in 2013 and upheld recently by a judge) will allow DC to control it's local budget without congressional meddling, meaning that (I think) the congressional budget rider that republicans attached to the national budget to prevent legal sales of marijuana in DC can now be sidestepped starting the next fiscal year (which begins in October.) The city counsel and mayor recently voted to ban social clubs that would be established for the sole purpose of marijuana consumption, so I'm not sure if the DC government will be eager about establishing legal venues for sales and will just be content with the current limbo for years on end. :/ Legal sales in DC would be huge though, not just for DC but for that entire metropolitan region and any cannabis store in DC stands to make decent money.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:"Funding to oppose California marijuana legalization this year has grown from a paltry $13,000 to over $60,000 thanks to a major group — the state’s prison guards." If the pro-cannabis legalization people had better messaging this could be an effective propaganda coup.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Another major article throwing shade at legalization, this time from the perspective of "concern for the poor." http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...negative-213906 Here's the other one, this time from the perspective of "legalization didn't change disparate arrests along color lines." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/legal-pot-and-the-black-market/481506/ I know I'm not quoting passages, but these links are just for the benefit of people interested in the spectacle of the debate over cannabis legalization. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 08:07 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:No. Marijuana legalization will not solve systemic racism. I agree, but over-emphasis of arguments like "there will be reduction in disparate arrests rates" is the result of cannabis legalization proponents' assiduous avoidance of defending the recreational use of cannabis as a benign or good thing and therefore having to rely primarily on arguing for the other benefits of legalization, which often just plays into the hands of prohibitionists -- eg, Kevin Sabet this week bragging (with charts) that tax revenue in Washington State for marijuana was a lot less than promised by the pro-legalization crowd.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
What do you guys think the chances of California legalizing in 2016 are?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...2299_story.html The budget language republicans are preparing will prevent DC from using ANY funds (whether local or federal) to legalize recreational cannabis. Doesn't say so in the above article (but which does mention republicans using control of DC's budget to push conservative agendas) but Tom Angell confirms it via Twitter: https://twitter.com/tomangell/status/735172741893099520
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
The Man Who Hopes To Stop Marijuana Legalization in California. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-D3l0SfRUI He says weed causes mass shootings in USA and Europe.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Marijuana is very much a Western US topic, and it reflects the more Libertarian streak of the area (versus the East that has more of a Moral Imperative theme going on). Indeed, this is something I only recently begun to appreciate, especially since a traditionally liberal states like New Jersey and NYC continue to be resistant to medical marijuana let alone recreational. The push-back from some state politicians in MA to the ballot question has been ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tomangell/status/742163524386967552
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. Yes, but gays aren't prosecuted by government itself, whereas marijuana enthusiasts are. Your complaints stem from other humans being lovely towards gay people, whereas the prosecuting of people for possessing and using marijuana is the result of government action, which Democrats/liberals can actually have far more influence over than they can over human beings being inhospitable towards homosexuals. The Democrats obsession with LGBT issues does come at the expense of other issues because political capital is not unlimited.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:There is no constitutional protection for drug use of any kind. The Democrats do not control either Legislature and the national will isn't there to make it so. The 14th amendment has CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION and still can't manage power, why should the right to ingest one single substance suddenly overcome the ridiculous hurdles to pass legislation in a Republican legislature that frowns on weed use? LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution, weed isn't. Actually, the argument that LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution stems from the power of liberals sympathetic to LGBTQ issues have in legal and intellectual circles. Constitutional protections for LGBTQ folk are the result of advocacy for them, it's not inherent to the constitution. Likewise, those who are hostile to and have distaste for marijuana have had huge influence in legal and intellectual circles such that, for instance, the supreme court could give a torturous reading of the commerce law in Gonzales v. Raich to allow the federal government to prosecute those who grow medical marijuana. I'm going to directly state what I've been hinting at: LGBTQ issues suck up a lot of political capital that, from a utilitarian perspective, could be better spent on other issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is, it's medical ethics. Sorry that you still want to stick to your completely ignorant insistent that anyone should be able to consume anything. An argument can be made that more overall harm comes to society because of marijuana prohibition (again -- arrests, life-ruining criminal record, violence in the black market, police abuse of authority, 4th amendment violations etc) than some gay people (2% of the population) facing lovely behavior from people who don't like them. I'm not going to say which is the greater harm, but it's ridiculous for you to reduce the former to "lol u just sad u can't smoke in front of a cop."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Oh man, you're right. Peace out for now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Congrats on stating something that's false I guess? Sorry that you're a hateful enough person to think it's ok if people are still getting booted out of jobs and homes because "eww icky gays" is considered a valid reason in many states? Sorry you're uncaring and dumb enough to think it's ok if people get arrested and have their lives ruined for smoking marijuana because "marijuana smoking is not a right." (This isn't how I usually argue but I believe in answering fire with fire)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The greater harm is anyone who isn't straight being able to be abused by society at large. Flat loving out. And again: gay people having rights isn't why you can't smoke weed in the first place. Yea, that's really shortsighted and stupid and, incidentally, quite convenient to the neo-liberal elite that considers a higher minimum wage anathema but still consider themselves liberal because they stand up for LBQGT rights. LBQGT issues sucking up a lot of political capital and oxygen has worked as a distraction from other issues and it's time liberals realized that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But you're not answering fire with fire. No one is an obligate smoker of weed. Gay people are gay all the time, and even if they never engage in "gay acts" they can still be legally oppressed in much of the country. I could have an urgent desire to smoke weed, much like a gay man could have an urgent desire for some dick. Come on, man. Liberty is liberty. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Go gently caress yourself. Both are issues of bodily autonomy and liberty. You go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I would tell you to go die as well but it seems like you've already ceased brain function, you enormous rear end in a top hat. You probably don't actually believe what you're posting but if you're going to concern troll about gay rights on today of all the goddamn days to do it, shut the gently caress up. Stop privileging some matters of personal liberty over others you douche. Your desire for dick is as valid as my desire for weed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Again, the desire to partake of marijuana can be as passionate and encompassing as the desire for a same sex relationship, I'm not sure why you keep belittling this stance and it strikes me as prejudiced and intolerant as distaste for homosexuals.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:Your desire for weed is brought on by your innate inferiority, and a desire to dull the misery of your meaningless existence. This is just as ugly a statement as telling a gay man that he's gay because women won't touch him. Shame on you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Actually, shitstain, the real prejudice and intolerance lies equivocating the consumption of a non-addictive drug with innate human sexualities that have been discriminated against for thousands of years. Here we see why social justice causes are in fact zero sum, because they become wrapped up in identity politics and people go "my issue is paramount and important" even when they're sufficiently being addressed and selfishly advocate for the hogging of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:sufficiently being addressed? tell that to transgendered individuals, unable to use the bathrooms they wish. I'm sorry, but this is pretty ridiculous. More harm is coming to society due to marijuana prohibition than stems from a very tiny minority of people with possible mental issues not being allowed to use the restrooms of the opposite sex.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'm sure the 49 dead people in Orlando, all the homeless LGBTQ youth, the people fired or thrown out of their homes for being gay, are happy to know you think their causes are being sufficiently addressed, you piece of garbage. There's nothing the government can do about people being thrown out of their homes for being gay, just like there's nothing government can do about people being thrown out of their homes for smoking pot. What government can do is stop prosecuting homosexuals, which the Western nations have done, but they need to stop prosecuting marijuana aficionados as well. LBGTQ advocates are sucking up political capital and oxygen in the hope of creating a utopia where humans are all tolerant and accepting of gays and in the process perhaps block progress on other issues that actually stem from direct government action. Rollofthedice posted:This is some pathetic trolling. Splutter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
dupe
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You should probably stop trying to draw an equivalency between these two things, since pot smokers haven't faced nearly the same degree of persecution as LGBT people, for utterly immutable aspects of their being. More total harm has been done to society in the past 60 years because of drug prohibition than because of anti-gay agitation. In fact the numbers of lives ruined because of marijuana is probably greater than the number of lives ruined because of prejudice against homosexuals, which are a tiny minority of which a substantial number has a hard time growing up in an intolerant society. 8.8 million people were arrested for marijuana from 2001 to 2010. The total harm imposed on society because of that can be argued to be greater than if in the same period 1 million people faced homelessness (usually a temporary condition) due to homophobia, or at the very least we can see these as being equivalent harms. Stressing that homosexuality is immutable and drug usage is merely a preference gives a tacit justification to the punishment those 8.8 million people received as if to say "break the law and pay the price" which is quite hosed up IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're going to have to back this up with evidence, because I'm pretty sure you're talking out of your rear end here. It's a conjecture. Count up all the people imprisoned, killed and brutalized because of the drug war -- and because of drug dealers having to enforce property rights amongst themselves and their customers -- and compare it to the number of people who have suffered because of prejudice against homosexuals. Yes there was a mass shooting on Sunday in Orlando that killed 50 homosexuals, but literally tens of thousands of people died in Mexico over the past few years because of the drug war. Heck, even keep the focus national. How many people have been more harmed in the USA because of drug policies vs how many have been harmed because of prejudice against gays? Can you give me an easy answer to this? Regardless, it's fair to think about this and ask why among liberals one issue gets so much focus and resources and the other is relegated to the back of the queue in causes to champion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except, here's the thing - drug users in this thread are vocally trying to diminish the importance of the LGBT rights movement, a day after 50 LGBT people were massacred for being LGBT. Whether you care to admit it or not, there is a difference between being persecuted for something you choose to do (smoke weed), and something you do not choose to do (be gay). They are both bad things, but a big part of life is that there are degrees of "bad things." Persecuting somebody for something innate to their being that they did not choose about themselves is, in and of itself, usually worse than persecuting somebody for a thing that they elect to do. Stressing the possible biological root of homosexuality above all else is counterproductive in my opinion, because I'm someone who thinks homosexuality should be accepted even if it is a choice. Saying "I can't help it" all the time appears to acknowledge that it is on the surface a bad thing but it should be tolerated because the person just can't help it. Screw that. But let's go your route and stress biology. The partaking of mind-altering substances is common to most cultures, and it's so extensive that it can be fairly argued that this desire is innate. Much like the homosexual can't resist his urges, so too (with their being natural variability in this desire among the population and all) can't lots and lots of people not help their desire to partake of substances that allow them to temporarily escape the tyranny of consciousness. So if you people are going to dismiss drug use as merely a choice, I counter that it's an innate desire, perhaps as innate a desire (if not more so, given the proportion of humans who use drugs/alcohol vs those who are gay) as homosexuality. This is a book that makes the the case that humans have a natural desire for intoxication: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594770697/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3H52XOS2C26YB&coliid=IUW65R697I95Z
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Except for the fact that it is an immutable aspect of LGBT people's existence, just as being black is an immutable aspect of a black person's existence. I'm sorry, but you can't equate your struggle with that of LGBT people. It's not the same thing. And the desire for mind-altering substances is immutable too. You can scare people away from partaking in marijuana, but that doesn't eliminate the desire, much like sodomy laws didn't eliminate the desire for butt sex.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:e: ahahaha, I didn't realize that "Object in mirror" is a different poster.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's really not. I know you want to believe what that quack-written book says, but it's BS. quote:Ronald Keith Siegel (born 1943) is an American psychopharmacologist who was an associate research professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Siegel is the author of several noted studies and books on psychopharmacology, hallucination, and paranoia.[1] He has studied, lectured, and conducted research at Brandeis University, Harvard Medical School, Dalhousie University, and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and has been a consultant to several government commissions on drug use. His research has focused on the effects of drugs on human behavior, and has included numerous clinical studies in which human volunteers (sometimes referred to by Siegel as "psychonauts") have taken drugs such as ketamine, LSD, marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and THC.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_K._Siegel edit: Majorian, quoting a paragraph's PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY summary of the book is ridiculous. It's not zero sum, you know. Both the desire for drugs and homosexuality could be innate. The former being true doesn't diminish the latter. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Majorian posted:You're either Bernice Anders, or MIGF. That's my guess. Well you sincerely quoted that PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY summary of his work so he must be a quack. PS: When liberal scientists were arguing that homosexuality was innate, they used to point to animal behavior, like ducks. Your hilariously inept PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY critique faults Siegel for using animal studies. Were you being serious with that link?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 06:16
|
|