Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Bill Clinton: Let states decide whether they want to inhale or not   (nydailynews.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4744 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2014 at 3:07 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-30 12:38:33 AM  
I'm trying to think of any other topic in which the Democrats are using the "states' rights" arguments when there is already federal oversight, and coming up blank. Is there another case? Just push for federal decriminalization already.
 
2014-06-30 01:08:29 AM  

nmrsnr: I'm trying to think of any other topic in which the Democrats are using the "states' rights" arguments when there is already federal oversight, and coming up blank. Is there another case? Just push for federal decriminalization already.


I agree, though I do applaud the states for getting out in front of this and pushing for change.  The Democratic opposition to many 'state's rights' issues stems from a lot of the proposals being designed to reduce rights - limit access to abortion, limit access to voting, etc.  Marijuana legalization increases rights.

It looks like Alaska, California, Nebraska, and Oregon will have full legalization measures on the ballot this year.  In addition Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, and Ohio should have medical legalization on the ballot.  Some of those measures may or may not have the required signatures, it looks like the deadlines are mostly this past or this coming week, so we should know soon in any event.

Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future.  I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.
 
2014-06-30 01:42:30 AM  
On one hand, I think it's a good idea in the short term as it gives us the opportunity to measure the impact legalization has (states being the laboratories of democracy) as well as giving us an idea of what policies work best in legalization.

However, at some point, the feds have got to reclassify THC to allow for long term legalization and leave it to the states to decide whether to outlaw it or not, rather than outlawing it for everyone on the federal level.
 
2014-06-30 02:47:38 AM  
I get the cautious approach especially with Hillary maybe running. But I really wish Bill or someone of his speaking caliber and professional credentials would sidestep the bullshiat and call out the FDA, DEA, DOJ, Congress, etc. on this issue. Not just on pot, either.
 
2014-06-30 03:09:37 AM  
Individual states won't matter much to the DEA until it's descheduled.
 
2014-06-30 03:13:53 AM  
Also, Gun-rights, Abortion, and voter ID laws.
 
2014-06-30 03:14:41 AM  
 The fact that there are still people who think marijuana should be illegal is really, really stupid.
 
2014-06-30 03:15:01 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future.  I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.


Sort of ironic when you think about it.
 
2014-06-30 03:16:56 AM  

nmrsnr: I'm trying to think of any other topic in which the Democrats are using the "states' rights" arguments when there is already federal oversight, and coming up blank. Is there another case? Just push for federal decriminalization already.


Decriminalization is a baby step - the goal is legalization. But in the meanwhile, states are under no constitutional obligation to devote their own limited law enforcement resources on the line to enforce the federal policy. This is different from the "states' rights" nonsense because the issue isn't federal authority. The issue is whether states have to enact and enforce their own prohibitive laws. The feds are going to do whatever the feds are going to do, and there's nothing we can do about that at the state level. All we're saying is that, here in Washington, local law enforcement won't be wasting time and money enforcing prohibition at the state level.
 
2014-06-30 03:17:14 AM  

Harry_Seldon: TuteTibiImperes: Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future.  I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.

Sort of ironic when you think about it.


You really do think?
 
2014-06-30 03:24:55 AM  
The headline could have been "Ex-President Supports Thing That is Already Happening". That's a bold stance there, Bubba.


TuteTibiImperes: Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future.  I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.


Is it a Constitutional amendment? Sounds like they might be taking a page from the anti-gay marriage playbook.


nmrsnr: I'm trying to think of any other topic in which the Democrats are using the "states' rights" arguments when there is already federal oversight, and coming up blank. Is there another case? Just push for federal decriminalization already.


Euthanasia?

/would have said "Death with Dignity" but I hate euphemisms
 
2014-06-30 03:28:59 AM  

Bill Clinton: Let states decide whether they want to inhale or not



The funny thing is that he was talking about gay marriage.
 
2014-06-30 03:32:21 AM  

Harry_Seldon: TuteTibiImperes: Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future.  I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.

Sort of ironic when you think about it.


Not when you consider red states desire for punishment of liberal ideas. Just ten years ago, red states were making laws saying marriages was for only one man and one woman at a time when nowhere was same gender marriage legal. Ditto for states that still have laws outlawing and criminalizing interracial marriage even though they can't enforce it.
 
2014-06-30 03:33:38 AM  
Washington State checking in. We're still behind Colorado, but there was an Illegal Grow bust a few weeks back where the cops just took the plants away without arresting anyone.

A couple more weeks, and the recreational shops will be in business.
 
2014-06-30 03:46:10 AM  
Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.

So, we limp along, and states fall one by one, and eventually the Fed has to make a change. I say "has to" because as time marches, the demographics demand it.
 
2014-06-30 03:51:34 AM  
My god. If they legalize pot on a grand scale, the Libertarians will lose 3/4 of their membership.
 
2014-06-30 03:59:10 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future. I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.


It's so they can ask for more Homeland Security money to shore up the border to stop the inflow of all the BC bud.
 
2014-06-30 04:00:34 AM  

neongoats: Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.


Where do you get that from? Unless you consider hippies a "race."
 
2014-06-30 04:02:21 AM  

neongoats: Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.

So, we limp along, and states fall one by one, and eventually the Fed has to make a change. I say "has to" because as time marches, the demographics demand it.


States rights are the right place for some things - like marijuana legalization, but terrible for other things - like civil rights.
 
2014-06-30 04:03:14 AM  
So state's rights is good again.

Got it.
 
2014-06-30 04:04:46 AM  
Bill Clinton: Let states decide whether they want to inhale swallow or not


/obv & oblig
//I'm the 1st?
 
2014-06-30 04:05:51 AM  

gerbilpox: Bill Clinton: Let states decide whether they want to inhale swallow or not


/obv & oblig
//I'm the 1st?


Nix Nightbird: Bill Clinton: Let states decide whether they want to inhale or not

The funny thing is that he was talking about gay marriage.


Apparently not.
 
2014-06-30 04:07:31 AM  

gerbilpox: Where do you get that from? Unless you consider hippies a "race."


In the old days, it was thought that precious white women would succumb to negroes, via the devil's tobacco.
 
2014-06-30 04:08:04 AM  
Of course it should be up to the states, as with nearly everything else. That was the whole point of being a nation of states in the first place. Have the Feds do the absolute bare minimum, military, borders, money, highways, foreign affairs, etc. Leave everything else to the states. Drugs, education, energy, taxes, health care, etc. That's 50 laboratories where each state can see what works and doesn't work for its people. If you think some other state is doing something better than yours, go there. Hate that Illinois has high taxes, lots of social programs, and strict gun laws? Leave. Hate that Texas allows teaching intelligent design, doesn't have enough programs, and allows people to have the guns they want? Leave. Vote with your feet and let people show whose states ideas work, and whose don't.
 
2014-06-30 04:09:20 AM  

gfid: neongoats: Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.

So, we limp along, and states fall one by one, and eventually the Fed has to make a change. I say "has to" because as time marches, the demographics demand it.

States rights are the right place for some things - like marijuana legalization, but terrible for other things - like civil rights.


Honestly, states rights should be used to push for national issues. Women's suffrage started with individual states and these days gay rights are in the same boat. It is clear marijuana should be legalized federally but it has to start through the states. Marijuana isn't some state specific issue, it's just that some states are on the right side of history. I know as a Californian what Colorado and Washington have done for weed has been a huge benefit just like California was a huge benefit for medical marijuana (and the weed movement in general). It's a great way to ease the nation into the right direction.
 
2014-06-30 04:09:32 AM  

Wolf892: So am I the only one in the world that doesn't like pot? Seems like I'm the only one not excited about pot getting legalized.


Would you be excited if the government stopped wasting billions of dollars trying to prevent consenting adults from consuming a rather innocuous substance?
 
2014-06-30 04:10:43 AM  

Wolf892: So am I the only one in the world that doesn't like pot? Seems like I'm the only one not excited about pot getting legalized.


As long as you don't think it should be illegal I could care less. I don't even smoke weed that much anymore, but it's just common sense.
 
2014-06-30 04:11:38 AM  
Couldn't care less, sorry grammar nazis, not a mistake I like to make.
 
2014-06-30 04:13:48 AM  

gfid: neongoats: Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.

So, we limp along, and states fall one by one, and eventually the Fed has to make a change. I say "has to" because as time marches, the demographics demand it.

States rights are the right place for some things - like marijuana legalization, but terrible for other things - like civil rights.


You can't have it both ways.

taurusowner: Of course it should be up to the states, as with nearly everything else. That was the whole point of being a nation of states in the first place. Have the Feds do the absolute bare minimum, military, borders, money, highways, foreign affairs, etc. Leave everything else to the states. Drugs, education, energy, taxes, health care, etc. That's 50 laboratories where each state can see what works and doesn't work for its people. If you think some other state is doing something better than yours, go there. Hate that Illinois has high taxes, lots of social programs, and strict gun laws? Leave. Hate that Texas allows teaching intelligent design, doesn't have enough programs, and allows people to have the guns they want? Leave. Vote with your feet and let people show whose states ideas work, and whose don't.


This.

The only problem with state's rights is that the people have to take responsibility for the rules they live under and the leaders they choose.
 
2014-06-30 04:14:46 AM  

taurusowner: Of course it should be up to the states, as with nearly everything else. That was the whole point of being a nation of states in the first place. Have the Feds do the absolute bare minimum, military, borders, money, highways, foreign affairs, etc. Leave everything else to the states. Drugs, education, energy, taxes, health care, etc. That's 50 laboratories where each state can see what works and doesn't work for its people. If you think some other state is doing something better than yours, go there. Hate that Illinois has high taxes, lots of social programs, and strict gun laws? Leave. Hate that Texas allows teaching intelligent design, doesn't have enough programs, and allows people to have the guns they want? Leave. Vote with your feet and let people show whose states ideas work, and whose don't.


Because everyone has the money to pull up stakes and move, and there's always at least one state that has a decent climate that has all the laws you agree with and none of the ones you hate.
 
2014-06-30 04:17:05 AM  
When Clinton said he "didn't inhale" my first thought was "you poor poor bastard motherfarker."

So many of the people who elected him would have cheered to hear him be the first Presidential candidate who admitted to smoking marijuana.

It was a series of many backpedals. Makes Obama putting on a flag pin seem innocuous in comparison.

I voted against Clinton in 1996. Didn't think Dole was going to win anyway, and voted Nader as a "protest" vote.

Clinton was a huge disappointing 8 years. No, I don't think the same thing about Obama. Suck it haters.
 
2014-06-30 04:20:35 AM  

AngryDragon: gfid: neongoats: Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.

So, we limp along, and states fall one by one, and eventually the Fed has to make a change. I say "has to" because as time marches, the demographics demand it.

States rights are the right place for some things - like marijuana legalization, but terrible for other things - like civil rights.

You can't have it both ways.


Yeah, pretty sure we actually can!
 
2014-06-30 04:21:10 AM  

Wolf892: So am I the only one in the world that doesn't like pot? Seems like I'm the only one not excited about pot getting legalized.


Marijuana legalization is a lot like abortion legalization.  Regardless on whether you plan to partake in one or are even equipped to partake, it's still reasonable to believe that people should be allowed to choose for themselves.  That there is no measurable "public good" and measurable "public harm" in prohibiting it.

If one were to believe that the primary role of government is to secure and protect the public good, legalization is a no brainer.
 
2014-06-30 04:21:23 AM  

Wolf892: The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.


lol no

Also, cigarette smoke tends to get into things, and onto surfaces. Pot smoke, not so much.

Maybe you just need to get high. You sound really uptight.
 
2014-06-30 04:23:06 AM  

Wolf892: Snapper Carr: Wolf892: So am I the only one in the world that doesn't like pot? Seems like I'm the only one not excited about pot getting legalized.

Would you be excited if the government stopped wasting billions of dollars trying to prevent consenting adults from consuming a rather innocuous substance?

We could say that about so many things though, military spending, voting for their higher salaries, corporate bailouts... The government spends money like it was water wherever they see fit. This isn't a good enough argument for me.

The fact is, I know that as soon as pot is legal I'm going to be smelling it day and night everywhere. The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

I live in an apartment building, I can't afford a house out in the woods, I know that as soon as it's legal everyone who can get their hands on the stuff is going to be smoking it and there will be no respite from that stench, not even in my own home.


You think weed sticks to things more than cigarettes? LOL. You want weed to remain illegal based on the smell? LOL. You think everyone will pick up marijuana just because it's legal? LOL. You want to continue the failure that is the war on drugs based on that nonsense? LOL.
 
2014-06-30 04:25:46 AM  

Wolf892: whidbey: Wolf892: The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

lol no

Also, cigarette smoke tends to get into things, and onto surfaces. Pot smoke, not so much.

Maybe you just need to get high. You sound really uptight.

"get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules." What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.


You don't have to get high, just don't support bullshiat laws that have no basis in reason.
 
2014-06-30 04:27:25 AM  

Wolf892: whidbey: Wolf892: The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

lol no

Also, cigarette smoke tends to get into things, and onto surfaces. Pot smoke, not so much.

Maybe you just need to get high. You sound really uptight.

"get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules."


No I mean "being uptight." You've never smoked weed, have you? But I'll bet you drink.

'What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.

First of all, that isn't going to happen. Second of all, you can't get high off smoke wafting in from a balcony.

What are you writing a remake of "Reefer Madness" or something? No way you can be serious. The lulz.
 
2014-06-30 04:28:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Montana, oddly enough, seems to have a ballot initiative designed to reaffirm the illegality of marijuana, and to prevent the passing of any law to legalize it in the future.  I'm not sure what the point of that it since it's already illegal there, and any future ballot measure could conceivably be just to repeal that law in addition to legalizing it.


It's like the state laws passed in the mid '00s that made same sex marriage more especially equally verboten than normal, like the one Utah had. Or the people pushing the anti-Sharia law bills, remember those? It's like shooting fish in a barrel for whichever junior Senator proposes the legislation...
 
2014-06-30 04:28:40 AM  

Wolf892: Snapper Carr: Wolf892: So am I the only one in the world that doesn't like pot? Seems like I'm the only one not excited about pot getting legalized.

Would you be excited if the government stopped wasting billions of dollars trying to prevent consenting adults from consuming a rather innocuous substance?

We could say that about so many things though, military spending, voting for their higher salaries, corporate bailouts... The government spends money like it was water wherever they see fit. This isn't a good enough argument for me.

The fact is, I know that as soon as pot is legal I'm going to be smelling it day and night everywhere. The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

I live in an apartment building, I can't afford a house out in the woods, I know that as soon as it's legal everyone who can get their hands on the stuff is going to be smoking it and there will be no respite from that stench, not even in my own home.


So it's ok to trample on someones rights because to do otherwise would be a slight nuisance to you?
 
2014-06-30 04:28:45 AM  

Wolf892: whidbey: Wolf892: The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

lol no

Also, cigarette smoke tends to get into things, and onto surfaces. Pot smoke, not so much.

Maybe you just need to get high. You sound really uptight.

"get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules." What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-06-30 04:28:48 AM  

whidbey: Wolf892: whidbey: Wolf892: The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

lol no

Also, cigarette smoke tends to get into things, and onto surfaces. Pot smoke, not so much.

Maybe you just need to get high. You sound really uptight.

"get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules."

No I mean "being uptight." You've never smoked weed, have you? But I'll bet you drink.

'What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.

First of all, that isn't going to happen. Second of all, you can't get high off smoke wafting in from a balcony.

What are you writing a remake of "Reefer Madness" or something? No way you can be serious. The lulz.



What's up homie, we agree on something! Wu Tang!
 
2014-06-30 04:29:16 AM  

parahaps: AngryDragon: gfid: neongoats: Well... on the one hand we burnt down Hotlanta to prove states rights are bullshiat. On the other hand, letting the dominoes fall one by one is proving to people that the "Reefer Madness" was really a big pile of bullshiat invented out of whole cloth by racists and paper industrialists.

So, we limp along, and states fall one by one, and eventually the Fed has to make a change. I say "has to" because as time marches, the demographics demand it.

States rights are the right place for some things - like marijuana legalization, but terrible for other things - like civil rights.

You can't have it both ways.

Yeah, pretty sure we actually can!


No.  You can't.

The discussion of state's rights isn't about drugs, civil rights, or any other point issue.  It's a discussion about the very structure and functioning of government.  The tide of legalization for drugs and gay marriage is a perfect example of how this is supposed to work.  The people pass laws locally, which is MUCH easier to do than the process at the federal level, and live under those laws.  They get tested, spread or wither based on effectiveness, and become de facto policy.  Where they challenge the Constitution, the Supreme Court strikes them down and the supremacy clause takes over.  Eventually, real change is accomplished through grass roots campaigns.  If we had waited for this at the federal level, we would still be waiting.

Oh, and because this happens in 50 different venues rather than one, everything happens a hell of a lot faster.  All politics is local.  This has the side benefit of reducing the federal government's stranglehold on power and influence and spreading it closer to the communities where it affects people directly.

So no, you can't
 
2014-06-30 04:29:54 AM  

TheJoe03: t's up homie, we agree on something! Wu Tang!


I know, it's hard to believe!

Weed: the Great Uniter.
 
2014-06-30 04:31:11 AM  

whidbey: TheJoe03: t's up homie, we agree on something! Wu Tang!

I know, it's hard to believe!

Weed: the Great Uniter.


We're just different kinds of liberals, so not really. Anyways, weed rules!
 
2014-06-30 04:31:32 AM  

Wolf892: "get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules." What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.


Even if it were completely legal in the entire country "everyone else" is not going to be smoking marijuana, certainly not with the kind of frequency you might think.

Not everyone drinks, not everyone smokes, and both those things have been legal for a very long time.  Marijuana isn't much different.  Some will smoke all the time, some will smoke it infrequently, some will consume it in non-smoke form. some will be "meh" and not smoke at all.  That's okay.
 
2014-06-30 04:34:00 AM  

Ambivalence: Wolf892: "get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules." What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.

Even if it were completely legal in the entire country "everyone else" is not going to be smoking marijuana, certainly not with the kind of frequency you might think.

Not everyone drinks, not everyone smokes, and both those things have been legal for a very long time.  Marijuana isn't much different.  Some will smoke all the time, some will smoke it infrequently, some will consume it in non-smoke form. some will be "meh" and not smoke at all.  That's okay.


Actually I can think of places in Seattle where everyone does both. Only it's usually coffee as the drink of choice during the day.
 
2014-06-30 04:36:18 AM  

Wolf892: whidbey: Wolf892: whidbey: Wolf892: The stink of pot is worse than cigarette smoke, it seems to reach further and just sticks to things.

lol no

Also, cigarette smoke tends to get into things, and onto surfaces. Pot smoke, not so much.

Maybe you just need to get high. You sound really uptight.

"get high" that's the answer to everything for pot heads right? Being uptight, you mean "following the rules."

No I mean "being uptight." You've never smoked weed, have you? But I'll bet you drink.

'What if I don't want to get high? What if I don't want to get high off of second hand smoke wafting in from my apartment balcony because everyone else is out on theirs sparking up.

First of all, that isn't going to happen. Second of all, you can't get high off smoke wafting in from a balcony.

What are you writing a remake of "Reefer Madness" or something? No way you can be serious. The lulz.

What isn't going to happen? Sounds like everyone in this thread is super excited to light up, get high, get stupid, forget their worries and stink up everywhere with that sickening pot smell. My guess is that as a lower middle income kinda guy I'm probably alone in a sea of pot heads who are stupid enough to think pot is "just for fun" and they're going to be using it every chance they get when they're not at work.


So you're just now admitting you're a troll? Why is alcohol okay but weed isn't okay to use just for fun when they're not at work? I await your reply.
 
2014-06-30 04:37:42 AM  

Wolf892: I know that as soon as it's legal everyone who can get their hands on the stuff is going to be smoking it and there will be no respite from that stench, not even in my own home.


While not exactly "legal" there has been little practical concern for me about either being arrested or suffering any legal consequences (job drug testing, etc.) for using pot for well over 25 yrs.  Hell, I'm a lawyer who had a few cops for friends over the years and I could have gotten some from them, with near 0% fear of consequences.

Yet, I choose not to smoke it.  You're assumption that if it were legal, everyone would be doing it, is just as misinformed as assuming that because alcohol consumption is legal, that everyone is hitting the bar or imbibing at home every single day.

In Portugal, where every drug is decriminalized, the rates of pot usage is less than that of the US, where it is currently illegal in most every state and by Federal law.

In other words, your assumption about pot usage exploding is basically a myth.  Anyone who wants to smoke it has likely long ago established a source to acquire it and those who don't are no more likely to use it if legalized than they do currently.
 
2014-06-30 04:37:46 AM  

Wolf892: My guess is that as a lower middle income kinda guy I'm probably alone in a sea of pot heads who are stupid enough to think pot is "just for fun" and they're going to be using it every chance they get when they're not at work.


Hate to burst your bubble, but they already HAVE BEEN doing this for years. Right under your very nose.

Old news is fun, isn't it?
 
2014-06-30 04:38:49 AM  

Wolf892: What isn't going to happen? Sounds like everyone in this thread is super excited to light up, get high, get stupid, forget their worries and stink up everywhere with that sickening pot smell. My guess is that as a lower middle income kinda guy I'm probably alone in a sea of pot heads who are stupid enough to think pot is "just for fun" and they're going to be using it every chance they get when they're not at work.


I live in Colorado.  Marijuana has been legal and very easy to get for the last 6 months.  But I haven't touched it.  I'm just not interested, but I still voted to legalize it because I believe there is no public benefit to prohibiting it.  I am also very keen to open up the US to growing industrial hemp, which is also prohibited because of its trace ammounts of THC.

You seem to be under the impression that everyone who's pro marijuana legalization is a "pot head" and just wants to "light up, get high, get stupid" and nothing could be further from the truth.  But maybe you're not really interested in the truth.  You certainly don't sound like you are.
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report