|
roboshit posted:I really hope this passes. Does Colorado have a better chance of passing this poo poo than California? From what I remember California couldn't pass it because of (1 voter apathy and (2 terrible old white people living in the suburbs and other rural areas of California. California also had a massive anti-legalization push from those who had personal investment in keeping the semi-legality of medical marijuana going. I'm not sure if that lobby is as big in Colorado.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
roboshit posted:Yeah, if weed smokers aren't a protected class then I wouldn't be too excited about legalization if smoking at home can still impact your professional life. It's disgusting that if I were to get hurt at work tomorrow and try to claim workman's comp then I'd be out of a job but a guy who drinks a handle of Wild Turkey a day and beats the poo poo out of his kids would be fine. Or if I were looking for a new job and I land one at a more conservative-minded place and they go oh look at this loving lazy pothead sorry kid. Well it would still be better than the status quo. All that goes on now and as a kicker you can be sent to jail.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
Fragmented posted:From the site: There'll still be a black market to avoid the tax but the difference is between the Dukes of Hazzard, who are dodging tax stamps and Al Capone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
The Mob smuggles cigarettes today to dodge tax but it's no where near the problem of organized crime running illicit drugs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Mushrooms was banned because a French girl threw herself off a bridge after taking them, and then politicians were falling all over themselves to 'protect the public'. From a quick google searching it seems like a bunch of people drown in the Amsterdam Canals every year. I would be that most of them are way drunk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Lets say it came to an anonymous poll in Congress and the Senate to legalized pot at the federal level, that is give states the right to regulate. What percentage of people in power would support this before how they would worry about this getting used against them in the next election?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Good job guys. Make the feds pay.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:More like unemployment hits a new high in Colorado and Washington when every unemployed stoner in America buys a Greyhound ticket tomorrow morning Ski season 2012-2013 will be special.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:US cigarette usage is decreasing. Weed isn't legal in the Netherlands.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:The problem is that people don't know what the schedules actually mean; they just know that schedule I means super mega bad and illegal. I was interested so I threw this together:  Which shows the harm score from here vs the US scheduling. Alcohol and tobacco are assigned 5 as they are unscheduled but the trend still is that the more highly scheduled a drug is the safer it is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This is what people on this forum don't understand. At least in Colorado the only reason this passed is because conservatives voted for it overwhelmingly. The only people I met who were against it also self-identified as liberal. I can't find an exit poll that correlates with political stance but here are the presidential and 64 by country result maps.   I would say there is enough geographic correlation to say that Obama supporters probably also supported 64.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Except for that giant city called Colorado Springs. El Paso county went against 64 and for Romney. Edit: I was looking for Colorado Spring specific results and I all I can find is the City Counsel passed a resolution condemning 64. It sounds like your thesis that "conservatives overwhelmingly supported 64" is extremely spurious unless you show some actual data that aren't a few of your friends. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
That's one person. I'm not arguing that no conservatives supported it but all the evidence shows that being conservative makes you more likely to oppose 64. The only breakdown I can find in an exit poll is by age.  Yet again the more the conservative demographics oppose legalization. I know this is more correlation != causation on my part but all the evidence I see seems to contradict what you're saying. NathanScottPhillips posted:The maps you posted show 7 districts for 64 that voted against Obama. Also El Paso county (only part of the Colorado Springs metro area) was less than the split for Obama. 51% of the state voted for Obama, 55% voted for 64. The conclusion I would make is that 64 was more popular than Romney but voting for Obama still correlates positively with voting for 64. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:There is no context for that graph, so I'm not sure what it represents. From what I can tell every demographic in Colorado supported 64 except people 65 and older. It's a CNN exit poll It shows that people 65 and older, which is the only age demographic that strongly supports Romney also strongly opposed Measure 64.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Again, many conservatives in Colorado voted for Obama. Yes, but you said. NathanScottPhillips posted:This is what people on this forum don't understand. At least in Colorado the only reason this passed is because conservatives voted for it overwhelmingly. The only people I met who were against it also self-identified as liberal. Many is not "overwhelming". The data seems to show that the majority of conservatives, albeit slim, probably opposed 64. I haven't seen data which shows conclusively that you are wrong but all the data opposes what you are saying. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Basic argument is that full legalization would cause prices to drop ridiculously, and trying to use taxation to increase the price would be nearly impossible without trading thousands of pot arrests with thousands of tax evasion arrests (although super-cheap pot is only a problem if you think increased use would be a bad thing.) I said exactly this earlier in the thread but one is Dukes of Hazzard and one is Al Capone. There would still be significant smuggling to avoid taxes but there'll still be less profit motive and less territorial violence motive to these crimes. Even with a decent tax margin it'll be hard for black market dealers to compete with white market dealers for a significant profit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Probably not Coors. I don't think cannabis directly competes with beer. Coors probably has a problem because he's an rear end in a top hat, not because it's competition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for a change of venue and looked for jurors unfamiliar with the state laws. There has been at least one case I know of in CA where all 12 jurors immediately recanted after they learned they had convicted a doctor for prescribing medical marijuana instead of a regular drug dealer. Well in any case, the federal government will be required doing things that they have to justify in some sense to continue prohibition. With the previous status quo the problem was the government could be irrational and not have to justify it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:So what you're saying is: as Denver has gotten progressively cooler and more welcoming, Boulder has done the opposite? I don't think the University of Colorado administration is 100% analogous with Boulder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
So he's basically arguing that heavy drinking is a public health menace completely orthogonally to anything to do with cannabis?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:What is decriminalization, exactly? From what little I've read possession is still a crime, but usually reduced to a misdemeanor offense, i.e. still a crime, and possession of large amounts and growing it is still punished harshly. Why isn't 'decriminalization' a misnomer? Well decriminalization is basically anything is the right direction. A good example of sustainable high level decriminalization is in the Netherlands but especially in the southern US where people still get real jail time and criminal records for possession anything to lessen enforcement would be good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
breaklaw posted:The legality of the drug has nothing to do with its effects on the body. The legality of the heroin they buy most certainly changes the effect it has on their bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:It would seem that unless the retail price pushes down to that hypothetical 80% mark, it is possible that the black market will continue to function as it always has. With state-level legalization in place, risk is reduced in the black market making it even more lucrative even if prices are pushed down. Who would get weed from a dealer if there were any legal options available whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Perhaps if amphetamines had been invented and part of world culture back thousands of years ago they would get the special place alcohol holds. You're not giving a very good justification for why we should add another dangerous drug to the place alcohol holds though. I don't think people are arguing that meth should be enshrines as a coveted social tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
DonnyJepp posted:Somebody in Colorado Springs tried that, lasted about a week: Who would guess that MMJ people are out to spread rumors about people getting arrested for sell weed without a card.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's just a pet-peeve of mine for people to take ideologically inconsistent positions when it fit's their world-view. The ideologically consistent view is to work towards legalization or decriminalization and people are consistent on that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You obviously don't know anything about cannabis production. Good cannabis is grown indoors under artificial lighting using hydroponic or partially hydroponic methods, using relatively exotic fertilizer mixes, often in an atmosphere enriched with CO2. That's not even touching other important characteristics that reduce yield, like plant sexing, curing, mold, etc. Treat it like a weed and it will give you product that looks, smells, and feels like it came from a weed. If you buy some produce from the story it's not the result of some farmer just tossing some seeds on the ground and maybe hosing it from time to time.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:And it's almost certainly not grown under artificial illumination, either. Well that's another reason why legal weed will be cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
KingEup posted:We are paying for prohibition and cannabis related health problems right now. Please explain how the lawful availability of cannabis will cost more than prohibition. Everyone's gonna be lazy and shiftless and fall prey to the twin evils of loose women and jazz music.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
katlington posted:There is already a weed tax and you pay it with weed. To me. Someone even wrote a song about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:Why do people complain about medical weed being a 'front' for legal weed? Do they also complain about the paper bag being a front for public intoxication? Christ, anything that keeps people out of jail is an improvement. Pleasure is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Devyl posted:I think it was posted earlier in this thread, but it was quoted that about 30% of Amsterdams' tourism comes from people looking to consume cannabis. I would guess that 100% of Amsterdams' tourism comes from people looking to consume alcohol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Police could just do a checkpoint with a drug dog present. If he alerts that's probably cause for search. Well seeing that drug dogs are basically probable cause machines who shoot out a ton of false positives it's probably what they'll do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Stop thinking everyone is internally logical You're the one who just espoused utilitarianism, the beep boopest of philosophies, like two posts ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
towelieban posted:That's a question that can solely be answered (properly at least) by a physician. It's nice that you're having your cake and eating it too but I assume you do see that this post is in odds with your previous post where you chastised doctors on how they distributed prescriptions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Decriminalization doesn't imply that enforcement actions against producers and traffickers will stop. Sure, it's a step forward for the end-user, but decriminalization does nothing to dismantle the black market for recreational drugs that is practically speaking the cause for just about all the harm caused by marijuana (and to a lesser extent, other drugs). Dutch style decriminalization has done just that, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Drug tourism isn't that different than any other tourism. No one likes tourists except for those who make money off of it or enjoy the infrastructure it brings.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
I mean Amsterdam has a big problem from drug tourism but as far as I can tell all the damage comes from people who visit to get pissed drunk. Edit: At least I've never seen someone who was clearly high try to throw a bunch of bikes into a canal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Alcohol is legal in the UK. Hope this helps. I would be surprised if smuggling in large quantities of alcohol and not paying the appropriate taxes is legal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
sweeptheleg5 posted:The country is being primed for full legalization I think. CNN's Sanjay Gupta thing is kinda sort of legitimizing things a lot. And is a long time DUHHH for most people who were interested enough to look past biased studies. It will be legal soon. It won't be legal nationally soon because it's not a national issue now. Politicians don't vote to legalize weed on any level above local and it's a null issue in Congress. There are a number of steps in the national public consciousness that need to be passed before there can be a legislative push.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 05:58
|
|