Posted on 11/04/2020 9:59:56 AM PST by BeauBo
The Associated Press says voters in five states have approved measures to legalize medical or recreational marijuana, or both, in Tuesday’s election.
Voters in Arizona, New Jersey, Montana and South Dakota voted to legalize recreational marijuana for people ages 21 or older, joining 11 other states and Washington, D.C.
South Dakotans also approved a measure to establish a medical marijuana program in the state for “individuals with a debilitating medical condition.”
According to the Marijuana Policy Project, that makes South Dakota the first state to legalize medical and adult-use marijuana on the same day.
In Mississippi, two versions of a medical marijuana amendment were on the ballot. One proposed allowing doctors in the state to prescribe medical marijuana to people with certain conditions, while the other restricted the program to terminally ill patients. Voters were required to weigh in on both, and the first option won out.
Medical marijuana was previously legal in 33 states and Washington, D.C., and several states have declared dispensaries “essential” businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.
Other states also made strides toward relaxing drug laws. Voters in Oregon supported a measure decriminalizing drug possession, including cocaine and heroin, and another legalizing the therapeutic use of psilocybin mushrooms. Washington, D.C., also approved measures to reduce the enforcement of laws against psilocybin mushrooms and other psychedelic plants.
According to Market Watch, Tuesday’s sweep means that one-third of Americans now live in states that have approved the sale of recreational cannabis.
(Excerpt) Read more at apps.npr.org ...
I call BS ... links?
It’s never a good idea to have a strong opinion about something for which you are willfully uninformed:
https://www.wikileaf.com/thestash/black-market-cannabis-2020/
https://www.city-journal.org/marijuana-black-market
And of course there is brain damage caused by long term use, increase in DWI / DUI deaths of innocent people, increase tendency toward violence from the brain damage, and all of the other social problems that go along with it.
Are you kidding? You actually said this?
What happens if a users shares their “small amount” with minor?
“It doesn’t make folks aggressive or irrational in a dangerous way.”
There is a relatively small subset of borderline psychotic individuals, who can can be tripped over into psychosis, by enough THC.
A high enough dose of THC will make anyone hallucinate, but some individuals have a very low threshold.
A question not addressed by the authors of the legislation, I’d bet.
"It is becoming almost routine across much of the country, law enforcement intercepting Colorado marijuana products being exported to other states."
Ah, so by 'Black market marijuana has increased' you meant, at the expense of black-marketeers in other states. OK ... what of it? The legally grown and sold product still cuts into the illegal sellers, wherever situated.
And of course there is brain damage caused by long term use,
Ditto for alcohol - which we've rightly seen as insufficient reason to ban that drug.
increase in DWI / DUI deaths of innocent people,
Increase in drivers testing positive for use that may have been weeks ago; where's the evidence for increased deaths?
increase tendency toward violence from the brain damage
Sounds like urban legend to me.
So does admitting to an alcohol problem or having spent time in a mental health facility.
How about when they’re drunk?
I agree with you entirely.
Alcohol is not a drug at all unless it is drunk at a rate higher than the body can metabolize. I understand a lot of people don’t act that responsibly with it, but it is entirely possible to do so. But there is no such thing as smoking marijuana to do anything but get a high (otherwise there would be no point to it). It is always a drug.
As for that and the rest of what you said, you obviously just have a narrative in your mind you want to stick with regardless of what the facts are.
Yes. And I can back it up with credible sources. Can you make an argument outside of using “argument by outrage?”
It is exactly that sort of uncompromising narrow band nonsense why Republicans lose, and rightfully so.
Imagine the potential voters gained had we done something about this idiocy, or addressed the dreamers: can you say Arizona?
But instead we want to be tough on imaginary issues where in some cases you cannot even claim we have a moral high ground, are inconsistent, make no economic sense, and base our argument on discredited crap like “gateway drug” or “mind altering substance.” Sugar and table salt are “mind altering” substances as well, FYI.
But keep going, and feel better about yourself even if you lose. Think of the elections like a participation award. We lost, but at least we were there. LOL
This election was lost because we failed to make easy gains with demographics where we could have easily had a huge impact without compromising our core values.
The human body metabolizes alcohol at the rotting-fruit level; drink any more alcohol than is found in rotting fruit and your criterion is met.
Is it your contention that drinking any more alcohol than is found in rotting fruit is not acting responsibly?
you obviously just have a narrative in your mind you want to stick with
Projection.
Yeah, right, “projection.”
Goodbye.
“Yes. And I can back it up with credible sources.”
Oh, I’m sure you can.
Goodbye.
Flee.
Imagine this:
We address the dreamers which would give us Az and pot which gives us Nv.
8,000 votes gave NV away in a party state and where pot is a big deal. Think about that.
How are the unborn, second amendment rights, national security, property rights, the tax burden on people, the public facing off with radical agendas by some special interest groups... served now? But... Some can claim that they stuck to their “principals” by being against something that is inevitable, based on Nixon trying to criminalize his political opposition and never based on science (not from day one) when made illegal, is inconsistent seeing how more addictive and more dangerous substances are legal, that doesn’t make economic sense (states that legalize it are making taxes off it), and where enforcing these laws goes against the age old conservative concept laid out by Oliver Wendell Holmes “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” i.e. if someone is smoking weed in his home and not causing trouble, what business is it of yours?
Conservatives have a knack in shooting themselves in the foot by passing up opportunities.
Good argument. (sarc)
Ok, but there are no restrictions in residences. That’s where it would impact me the most. Unless maybe landlords prohibit smoking in their buildings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.