So Colorado and Washington....

callen

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Good deal. It is absolutely crazy to me that Gay Marriage and Pot were the 2 big topics nationally. Really? Anyone check the economy lately?

Economy
Education
Debt
Housing
30,000 or so homeless in New York and Jersey

And what are people celebrating?
Gay Marriage and Dope smoking.

Its a wonderful world we live in....

Nothing more important than civil liberties.

jimed14

Zoso

jimed14 wrote:

cincybearcat

Zoso wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

Time for me to start that vending machine business I've been thinking about.

Snakeduck

callen wrote:

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Good deal. It is absolutely crazy to me that Gay Marriage and Pot were the 2 big topics nationally. Really? Anyone check the economy lately?

Economy
Education
Debt
Housing
30,000 or so homeless in New York and Jersey

And what are people celebrating?
Gay Marriage and Dope smoking.

Its a wonderful world we live in....

Nothing more important than civil liberties.

That's what these morons (with all due respect, of course, because that makes the name calling ok) fail to realize... and why they lost.

callen

cincybearcat wrote:

Zoso wrote:

jimed14 wrote:

Time for me to start that vending machine business I've been thinking about.

.

Great idea.

Wonder if there are any stocks that are now a bit more atttractive.

norm

now that obama has secured reelection, will he now end the 'drug war' and use that money for treatment and help balance the budget?


yes, i know this to be a pipe dream

callen

norm wrote:

now that obama has secured reelection, will he now end the 'drug war' and use that money for treatment and help balance the budget?


yes, i know this to be a pipe dream

Norm:

Think he backed off of his pro legalization stance due to election. Now that he's back in, think he'll go back to not using feds to enforce fed law. As more Americans see Colorado doesn't go into the shitter due to the evil weed, eventually more states will join and fed law will die as well.

Do think that social consevatives will fight back and may sway other way but momenum is in human rights court.

We have pushed our liberties farther than ever and moral laws will eventually die.

cincybearcat

callen wrote:

moral laws will eventually die.

That actually doesn't sound good. But I guess Moral law just means religious law? I've gotta hit a dictionary.

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

callen wrote:

moral laws will eventually die.

That actually doesn't sound good. But I guess Moral law just means religious law? I've gotta hit a dictionary.

While it wasn't worded the best, I think the point of it isn't elimination of religiously based law, but more along the lines of individual choice. Laws based on morality are different from laws based on individual rights. Example: Murder. If laws weren't based on morality, it would still be against the law because it violates the rights of another. But laws based in morality alone give us marriage legislation, sodomy laws...that kind of stuff.

But who knows...morality isn't a terrible thing to have as a society in general, but laws based on it solely aren't necessarily good laws.

Drowned Out

lukin2006 wrote:

Bennyorr4 wrote:

Its definitely a positive step and I hope both Canada and the USA governments pull their collective heads out of their asses and legalize pot nation-wide. It only makes sense. Make it as legal and regulated as alcohol (which, IMHO is more dangerous than pot for society) and to consumers; use it responsibly. Don't smoke and drive, don't smoke in front of kids or in public places (some may be offended = respect others) don't use before or at work etc, etc. The crime associated will disappear if these simple rules/guidelines are adhered by all users. Local and federal governments can tax the shit out of it like they do with tobacco and alcohol which will help the economy as well. I'm happy to hear that leaders are finally starting to smarten up about this. I think Canada would have legalized or at least decriminalize this relatively harmless substance but the US has a lot of influence on our government so we are just waiting for them to take the first step.

Those are just some of my personal thoughts. Sorry for the rant.

It'll never happen in Canada...and the only way i'd support it is if it is consumed on one's own premises.

Too many people driving UI still. Now people want too add pot smoking!!

No problem from my point of view if consumed in one's own residence...if caught outside the residence make it a very stiff fine.

The stoned driving argument is a strawman. I've posted about this many times...
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=183596&p=4491008&hilit=driving+stoned#p4491008
I've never really heard a good counter to that position, despite having raised it several times on this board. As I say in the link, I don't condone stoned driving - ideally, everyone should be as alert as possible when lives are at stake.....but at the same time, I don't think it holds water as a reason for continued prohibition.
besides....how many 'behind closed doors' laws are there? Increasing fines for public use while doing away from them? That double standard sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Deterrence-based laws just plain do NOT work when it comes to drugs. We've been proving it for over half a century now.

As for it never happening in Canada....I believe twice now we've had legislation passed to decriminalize personal use....and both times the government changed and the Cons crushed it before it came into law....due at least partially, as bennyorr said, to American pressure.

lukin2006

Drowned Out wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Bennyorr4 wrote:

Its definitely a positive step and I hope both Canada and the USA governments pull their collective heads out of their asses and legalize pot nation-wide. It only makes sense. Make it as legal and regulated as alcohol (which, IMHO is more dangerous than pot for society) and to consumers; use it responsibly. Don't smoke and drive, don't smoke in front of kids or in public places (some may be offended = respect others) don't use before or at work etc, etc. The crime associated will disappear if these simple rules/guidelines are adhered by all users. Local and federal governments can tax the shit out of it like they do with tobacco and alcohol which will help the economy as well. I'm happy to hear that leaders are finally starting to smarten up about this. I think Canada would have legalized or at least decriminalize this relatively harmless substance but the US has a lot of influence on our government so we are just waiting for them to take the first step.

Those are just some of my personal thoughts. Sorry for the rant.

It'll never happen in Canada...and the only way i'd support it is if it is consumed on one's own premises.

Too many people driving UI still. Now people want too add pot smoking!!

No problem from my point of view if consumed in one's own residence...if caught outside the residence make it a very stiff fine.

The stoned driving argument is a strawman. I've posted about this many times...
http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.ph ... d#p4491008
I've never really heard a good counter to that position, despite having raised it several times on this board. As I say in the link, I don't condone stoned driving - ideally, everyone should be as alert as possible when lives are at stake.....but at the same time, I don't think it holds water as a reason for continued prohibition.
besides....how many 'behind closed doors' laws are there? Increasing fines for public use while doing away from them? That double standard sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Deterrence-based laws just plain do NOT work when it comes to drugs. We've been proving it for over half a century now.

As for it never happening in Canada....I believe twice now we've had legislation passed to decriminalize personal use....and both times the government changed and the Cons crushed it before it came into law....due at least partially, as bennyorr said, to American pressure.

Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.

No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.

I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.

Drowned Out

lukin2006 wrote:

Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.

No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.

I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.

true about the liberals....if it was something they really wanted done, they could have done it in that time period. But it was the cons who crushed it once they finally got their shit together. Wouldn't suprise me if that was by design, but I don't recall exactly how it all went down, and googling this stuff at work is a bit sketchy...

As for the driving issue...Im aware of the difference between decrim and legalization....not sure how that applies to this discussion tho. Under either scenario, and more to my point - under the status quo, stoned driving will occur. My point is that there is nothing for them to 'deal with' before some government follows thru. It's basically a non-issue.
unless there is a big increase in the number of people smoking, which studies and precedents say there won't be, there won't be an increase in the number of people driving stoned. AND....driving stoned isn't as dangerous as some people think it is. Reaction times are not severely affected, and impairment levels are low.
Thus.....a strawman, a fear-mongering argument used by prohibitionists, and usually accepted by the public without much critical thought.

lukin2006

Drowned Out wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Decriminalizing isn't legalizing...its just removing the possibility of getting a criminal record.

No need to blame the conservatives...the liberals had 3 straight majorities to get it done and never did anything.

I don't really care either way ... but eventually the issue of people driving stoned will come up ... I just hope its dealt with before some government follows through ... even though I doubt it'll ever get that far.

true about the liberals....if it was something they really wanted done, they could have done it in that time period. But it was the cons who crushed it once they finally got their shit together. Wouldn't suprise me if that was by design, but I don't recall exactly how it all went down, and googling this stuff at work is a bit sketchy...

As for the driving issue...Im aware of the difference between decrim and legalization....not sure how that applies to this discussion tho. Under either scenario, and more to my point - under the status quo, stoned driving will occur. My point is that there is nothing for them to 'deal with' before some government follows thru. It's basically a non-issue.
unless there is a big increase in the number of people smoking, which studies and precedents say there won't be, there won't be an increase in the number of people driving stoned. AND....driving stoned isn't as dangerous as some people think it is. Reaction times are not severely affected, and impairment levels are low.
Thus.....a strawman, a fear-mongering argument used by prohibitionists, and usually accepted by the public without much critical thought.

like i said don't much matter to me either ... the liberals could have done that by design ... its common knowledge that the conservatives would never support these types of bills in Canada ... be interesting to see if Trudeau would if he wins liberal leadership and eventually a general election ... but where along way away from that happening.

I only bring up the decriminalizing because if you'll only be fined then the chances are you'll be more reckless and open ... meaning the chances of getting fined increases ... will this show up at customs when entering a foreign country ... maybe not all ... but some maybe ... whereas if it was just legal you'd never have a record of partaking in said substance ...

I don't know enough about the levels of impairment to debate the issues ... but here in Ontario under the graduated drivers license you can not have so much as a drop alcohol in your system ... so their are still some issues for the government to look at.

whygohome

A good outline of the benefits of legalization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... de=1732355

prism

whygohome wrote:

A good outline of the benefits of legalization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... de=1732355

thanks...that does a good job of showing the the big picture





found this that answers how Washington's new law will be implimented

http://thedefenseperspective.files.word ... 110712.pdf

pjradio

whygohome

prism wrote:

whygohome wrote:

A good outline of the benefits of legalization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... de=1732355

thanks...that does a good job of showing the the big picture

found this that answers how Washington's new law will be implimented

http://thedefenseperspective.files.word ... 110712.pdf

I read this while smoking a bowl.
I really disagree with the stipulation that one cannot grow pot and smoke it on their won property.

g under p

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

My husband and I have already said that when states legalize marriage equality, we'll go there and renew our vows.

So we're going to have a busy year.

But Seattle in the Spring. Then Maryland in the summer.

Then I guess Maine... later that summer?

Stop by Sebago Lake the big one just outside Portland it's too beautiful there, MD it has to be the Shenandoah Mountains are also quite nice especially in the fall very nice too I lived in both places.

Peace

prism

whygohome wrote:

prism wrote:

whygohome wrote:

A good outline of the benefits of legalization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... de=1732355

thanks...that does a good job of showing the the big picture

found this that answers how Washington's new law will be implimented

http://thedefenseperspective.files.word ... 110712.pdf

I read this while smoking a bowl.
I really disagree with the stipulation that one cannot grow pot and smoke it on their won property.

not that i'm defending it. tho i'm pretty sure the reasoning for having no 'grow your own' is because it would give better access to minors. also much like having a moonshine still...there's no way to assure quality control or tax revenues...consider % of alcohol = % of thc content in the same regard