Gov. LePage signs marijuana moratorium bill into law

[pcosmar]

I voted for it in WA State with full recognition of all the flaws inherent in the "legalization" laws.

am not surprised that our gov't can try to screw up something so simple as this. decrim is still a dream of mine, and i'm w/tod evans:

It was cool watching Washington State LOWER taxes on cannabis though.

They still seem pleased at the tax profits.. at 25%

 

[oyarde]

Marijuana protection team actively protecting your children;

Fort Worth .

 

[surf]

you need to know about this bill then
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1092&Year=2017
would allow home growing in washington
urge your legislator to support it

thanks for posting that. i'm already urging my legislators to sign on.

 

[CaseyJones]

thanks for posting that. i'm already urging my legislators to sign on.

np
also urge them to not support this one
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...te-bill-would-ban-bitcoin-for-marijuana-sales

 

[CaseyJones]

and tell your Rep to join the bipartisan Cannabis Caucus
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Your-Federal-Rep-To-Join-The-Cannabis-Caucus
I will bump the thread now

 

[jmdrake]

Okay. This is where libertarians cross the line from sensible advocates of decriminalization to zealots.

even better would be to have the Government out of Commerce entirely. other than preventing barriers to free trade.(commerce clause)

Ummmm.....that's not what the interstate commerce clause is for. It was never meant to prevent states from restricting commerce within their own state. It was meant to prevent states from restricting interstate commerce. States have always had the right to prohibit the sale of alcohol, prostitution, marijuana, or whatever. Maybe a state should be able to restrict anything but that's not the meaning of the interstate commerce clause.

Recreational/medical makes no difference.

If someone uses recreationally they receive medical benefits. someone using for medical may feel euphoric effects.

It's called a side effect. and as side effects go,, it is not unpleasant.

Well for most of the rest of the planet it does. Question. Do you think minors should be allowed to recreationaly use all drugs including heroin? Oxycontin is basically synthetic heroine. If your position is "All drugs should be legal for all people at all ages for any reason whatsoever" then fine. That's your position. I see no logical reason though to rag on LaPage for not going as far as you want on this issue even though he's gone further than many other governors.

My initial post was about children needing 'protected' from the 'dangers' of weed...

Weed isn't dangerous and to think that government is out to protect anybody but themselves is plain ludicrous..

When the method used to 'protect' is more harmful than the substance one is protected from there's something seriously wrong.

If a 16 year old smokes weed and gets behind the wheel that's dangerous. And yes, it's dangerous for a 21 year old to do that as well. But society takes the view that a 16 year old is more likely to take stupid chances than a 21 year old. Of course that could be because many who take stupid chances at 16 don't make it to 21.

The bigger question is whether throwing a kid in jail is worse than just letting them smoke pot or let their parents handle it. Going to jail or giving them a record can turn them into criminals, and possibly onto harder drugs.

Ummmm....that's why there is a juvenile justice system. It's unlikely for someone under 18 who gets busted for pot to get a criminal record. The real effect of having laws prohibiting minors from buying alcohol, cigarettes, porn or whatever is that the adults who sell it to them, buy it for them, end up with criminal records. Now here's something else to consider. If alcohol and cigarettes are still barred from minors but pot is allowed for minors then the bizarre result would be that instead of risking breaking the law to buy booze or cigs, minors would simply legally buy pot. Maybe that's a desired result for you, but to me that makes no sense.

I'm willing to concede an 18+ law for sales to get it legalized, but I wouldn't complain if it were treated like tomatoes either.

As for tomatoes? I've never heard of someone getting into a fatal car crash because he or she was driving under the influence of tomatoes.

That's really not true. LePage is on record many times saying he does not want to jail addicts, he wants to rehab them. He most surely does want to jail heroin dealers.

Thanks for the added info! So that even further bolsters my point that attacking LePage for not going so far as to say "6 year olds should be able to buy pot too" is just plain silly.

I would agree that pot is probably better for you than alcohol if you are going to use something.

21 seems to work. By 21 kids are getting more responsible. Every kid is different though. I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if they could buy dope and booze at 18, but maybe 21 is better.

I don't know if pot is worse or booze is worse. I know both can impair someone to the point that it isn't safe for that person to drive. And the average 16 year old has so little driving experience that he really doesn't need anything else that might cause him to have an accident. I'm fine with treating pot like booze. To me it doesn't make sense to treat pot like tomatoes.

 

[pcosmar]

I don't know if pot is worse or booze is worse. .

I would refute your entire post,, a piece at a time..

But that would be a wall of text. And that one line is quite enough.

You don't know shit but are willing to legislate it anyway.

The fact that you put the two in the same sentence as comparison is clear proof.

You truly are comparing tomato and gasoline,, and you don't know the difference between them.

 

[tod evans]

If a 16 year old smokes weed and gets behind the wheel that's dangerous. And yes, it's dangerous for a 21 year old to do that as well. But society takes the view that a 16 year old is more likely to take stupid chances than a 21 year old. Of course that could be because many who take stupid chances at 16 don't make it to 21.

Oh good grief!

16 y/o kids are more prone to do stupid shit due to hormonal overdoses than a weed buzz...

Seriously..........

 

[pcosmar]

Seriously..........

seriously

For thousands of years,, the plant was clothing,housing,food, medicine and commerce.
in only the last 100 years has it been outlawed and forbidden. and humans suffer for it.

and people who observed the total stupidity that was Alcohol prohibition,, want to continue the same.
it is madness.

 

[jmdrake]

I would refute your entire post,, a piece at a time..

But that would be a wall of text. And that one line is quite enough.

You don't know $#@! but are willing to legislate it anyway.

The fact that you put the two in the same sentence as comparison is clear proof.

You truly are comparing tomato and gasoline,, and you don't know the difference between them.

Sorry my friend but you are full of shyt this time. I already posted a link showing the already high incidents of pot based DUIs in states where pot is legalized. It doesn't matter if pot is worse than alcohol or not. Pot is clearly worse than tomatoes. You argument lacks logic, reason and merit.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh good grief!

16 y/o kids are more prone to do stupid $#@! due to hormonal overdoses than a weed buzz...

Seriously..........

Care to post stats of stats of 16 y/o kids who have had fatal crashes due to hormonal overdoes? Or are emotional pro pot outbursts all you are capable of? LaPage signed a law decriminalizing pot in his state. You should be happy about it.

 

[dannno]

Now here's something else to consider. If alcohol and cigarettes are still barred from minors but pot is allowed for minors then the bizarre result would be that instead of risking breaking the law to buy booze or cigs, minors would simply legally buy pot. Maybe that's a desired result for you, but to me that makes no sense.

As for tomatoes? I've never heard of someone getting into a fatal car crash because he or she was driving under the influence of tomatoes.

.

In Colorado, fatal accidents went down as a result of legalization... because people were drinking and driving less, suddenly many people had a new or better option.. Alcohol causes a lot of impairment for most drivers, a few people can handle being pretty drunk and drive ok and are comfortable enough to decide when they ok and not ok, but for most not only does it cause impairment for driving but it causes impairment for decision making. People who are really drunk will think they are not drunk (I've heard people say things like, "I had 12 drinks and I wasn't even drunk!!") Hah.. ya right, if you saw a video tape of how you were acting you probably wouldn't feel that way.. people in this state often think they are ok to drive when they are not.

Alcohol does cause issues with driving for most people, I don't know the best way to deal with it for certain, but I will admit it causes issues.

Cannabis for the most part causes little to no driving impairment in most cases, and in some cases studies have shown that small to moderate amounts of cannabis can actually cause people to drive safer. They don't tend to speed or drive aggressively, change lanes and they tend to obey the laws more carefully.

I don't recommend driving under the influence of cannabis if a person is severely intoxicated or if they have very little experience, but the fact is cannabis actually has the opposite effect of alcohol when it comes to deciding to operate a vehicle. People who are actually capable of driving tend to feel like they can't, and they will actually decide not to drive when they would have been ok to drive. So it is a lot more rare for someone who is too heavily intoxicated on cannabis to actually be driving. They will probably just wait 30-60 minutes until some of it has worn off, or they will fall asleep on their friend's couch for a short time wake up and be ok to drive or something. If you're not eating cannabis edibles, you can typically drive within an hour or 2 of consuming large amounts of cannabis without any issue.

But driving aside, cannabis is far safer for people to consume in general than alcohol, and it is also healthier for the body in the longrun than cigarettes.

 

[tod evans]

Care to post stats of stats of 16 y/o kids who have had fatal crashes due to hormonal overdoes? Or are emotional pro pot outbursts all you are capable of? LaPage signed a law decriminalizing pot in his state. You should be happy about it.

What I'm not happy about is his, and your, blatant lies about pot being 'dangerous'.........

You even go so far as to cite DUI arrests.......................For weed!

Were the kids driving too slow on their way to the pizza parlor?

Having lived long ago as a pot smoking teen who was enamored by both pussy and hotrods , and after watching a few generations struggle with hormones/booze and weed I'm very comfortable stating that most teens are better drivers stoned than distracted by hormones...

But feel free to carry on spouting complete and utter emotional state sponsored bullshit..

 

[pcosmar]

Care to post stats of stats of 16 y/o kids who have had fatal crashes due to hormonal overdoes?

Stats,, no..
Not sure they were even considered let alone recorded.
but art mimics life.

 

[jmdrake]

What I'm not happy about is his, and your, blatant lies about pot being 'dangerous'.........

The post stats to show I'm lying. You won't because you can't because you are the one lying.

You even go so far as to cite DUI arrests.......................For weed!

Liar. I posted stats from pot related fatal crashes. Not DUI arrests. Good grief why is this so important that you need to lie and then falsely accuse me of lying?

Were the kids driving too slow on their way to the pizza parlor?

I dunno. I simply posted stats from fatal crashes where one of the drivers had cannabis in his/her system and those stats are up since Washington state legalized pot. Now there are a lot of positives from legalizing pot. Overdoes from prescription drugs tend to go down for instance. One can be rational and point out the positives without being irrational, like you are, and pretending no negatives or potential negatives exist.

Having lived long ago as a pot smoking teen who was enamored by both pussy and hotrods , and after watching a few generations struggle with hormones/booze and weed I'm very comfortable stating that most teens are better drivers stoned than distracted by hormones...

Anecdotal bullshyt that really doesn't mean anything.

But feel free to carry on spouting complete and utter emotional state sponsored bull$#@!..

Keep being a pot cultist and lose all credibility with anyone else who isn't a pot cultist.

 

[jmdrake]

In Colorado, fatal accidents went down as a result of legalization... because people were drinking and driving less, suddenly many people had a new or better option.. 's

Great. Post the link to the stat. That's what I did. I posted a link to a stat showing fatal crashes involving pot went up in Washington state after pot legalization. Now, maybe total fatal accidents went down. Wonderful. But consider the freakanomic effect if pot is legal for teens and alcohol isn't. So teens which might not use either will naturally gravitate to pot. Perhaps that's a better option, but the best option for being behind the wheel is neither pot nor alcohol. I'm not sure why this is even controversial.

 

[dannno]

Great. Post the link to the stat. That's what I did. I posted a link to a stat showing fatal crashes involving pot went up in Washington state after pot legalization. Now, maybe total fatal accidents went down. Wonderful. But consider the freakanomic effect if pot is legal for teens and alcohol isn't. So teens which might not use either will naturally gravitate to pot. Perhaps that's a better option, but the best option for being behind the wheel is neither pot nor alcohol. I'm not sure why this is even controversial.

Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-near-historic-lows/?utm_term=.be7774e5af9a



The reason why fatal accidents related to cannabis in WA went up after legalization is because they started doing more testing in more locales, it was ordered by the state as part of the ordinance going into effect.

 

[tod evans]

The post stats to show I'm lying. You won't because you can't because you are the one lying.



Liar. I posted stats from pot related fatal crashes. Not DUI arrests. Good grief why is this so important that you need to lie and then falsely accuse me of lying?



I dunno. I simply posted stats from fatal crashes where one of the drivers had cannabis in his/her system and those stats are up since Washington state legalized pot. Now there are a lot of positives from legalizing pot. Overdoes from prescription drugs tend to go down for instance. One can be rational and point out the positives without being irrational, like you are, and pretending no negatives or potential negatives exist.



Anecdotal bullshyt that really doesn't mean anything.



Keep being a pot cultist and lose all credibility with anyone else who isn't a pot cultist.

So refusing to swallow the approved narrative cited in anti-pot statistics makes one a "pot cultist" eh?

Sorry dude I'm not going to play your game, and make no mistake, it is a game....One you want to engage in that threatens both your family and mine.

Pot is not dangerous unless a load falls on you from great height, citing government statistics about how THC was found in XYZ circumstances after legalization is just another form of government worship designed to rile the ignorant. In any study you may find relative to weed impairment you'll be left to deduce that weed was "dangerous" from conjecture and not fact.

Here's a simple fact that big-government proponents always fail to address; Weed is far less "dangerous" to society than weed laws and their enforcement.

So carry on with your statistics, downplay anecdotal (first hand) evidence and put your family at risk of harm from the government you seem to want protecting you....But by God stay the fuck away from me and mine! My family is much safer around plants than armed, brain washed goons and their lawyers.

That said...........Pay attention! My argument is simply that weed is much less "dangerous" than government enforcement of weed laws.

Anything else you want to bring to the table is addressing your own beliefs and not mine.

All of my posts in this thread address the use of the word "dangerous" to describe weed and the claim that kids need to be "protected" from weed.

 

[mrsat_98]

So refusing to swallow the approved narrative cited in anti-pot statistics makes one a "pot cultist" eh?

Sorry dude I'm not going to play your game, and make no mistake, it is a game....One you want to engage in that threatens both your family and mine.

Pot is not dangerous unless a load falls on you from great height, citing government statistics about how THC was found in XYZ circumstances after legalization is just another form of government worship designed to rile the ignorant. In any study you may find relative to weed impairment you'll be left to deduce that weed was "dangerous" from conjecture and not fact.

Here's a simple fact that big-government proponents always fail to address; Weed is far less "dangerous" to society than weed laws and their enforcement.

So carry on with your statistics, downplay anecdotal (first hand) evidence and put your family at risk of harm from the government you seem to want protecting you....But by God stay the $#@! away from me and mine! My family is much safer around plants than armed, brain washed goons and their lawyers.

That said...........Pay attention! My argument is simply that weed is much less "dangerous" than government enforcement of weed laws.

Anything else you want to bring to the table is addressing your own beliefs and not mine.

All of my posts in this thread address the use of the word "dangerous" to describe weed and the claim that kids need to be "protected" from weed.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

 

[Keith and stuff]

No doubt LaPage is 100% wrong on this issue. There was way too much time for the state government to come up with the regulations as it was. The government officials in Maine are just being extremely lazy. They don't want to do their jobs. Shame on them. Of course, this is expected. Government bureaucrats tend to be lazy. In fact, the thing bureaucrats are best at is delaying good policies while implementing bad policies.