I am not in favor or people smoking anytime, anywhere they want to, which is something legalization could help promote. If they want to legalize it, put some restrictions on it, you can buy it at the corner newsstand, but you can only smoke it in your own home or in your car (while the car is parked). If you have a shtty job and want to go out and smoke on your lunch break, well that is your business and nobody elses.
I know you're all saying well what about concerts, have separate smoking areas for pot and one for cigarette smokers, before the show, at intermission, and after the show, but not in your seats during the show because you make involuntariy smokers of others who may not want that. Open air ampitheatres, no, there is not enough wind to clear the air sometimes, have separate rooms or trailers for people to do that in. [including the bands they are so corruptible!]
Nobody should be driving while they are high. If the state wants the tax money, fine, let them set up pot factories or inspectors like the FDA who tour privately owned pot factories and make sure they are in compliance with quality control standards, so people know what they are buying and can get a predictable high.
Colorado has a whole industry out there, it's corporatized now. Regular businesses with factories, not just some guy in the basement with plants and lights.
I really don't like pot, but it is a reality of the world and several decades of people who want to smoke it, denying that doesn't help anyone. Nobody should be sitting in jail because they were smoking pot, and the people who go on to other drugs would have done so anyway, because they have a need to feel better which is what drugs help them do. The state ought to get out of people's bodies and their own personal decisions but they do have a right to protect public safety ie. test bus or train drivers, pilots for drug usage that could effect their performing their jobs.
Gov. Christie ought to take a poll and find out (anonymously of course) how many people in his state smoke pot, or want it legalized. He might be surprised at the results.
[Edited on 4/16/2015 by gina]
Gina you do realize there are stringent restrictions in Colorado and Washington state concerning where you can buy and smoke Ganja right?
Just as drinking alcohol in public is against the law everywhere I have ever been, except New Orleans, and must be purchased in stores with licenses to sell I highly doubt any state that legalizes ganja will allow you to smoke it in public or buy it at your local newsstand.
True, there are laws on the books for alcohol but the reality of it is, people go out, get drunk, and still drive around, all of which are illegal. I saw a video on the situation in Colorado, they have small stores that sell it, and it looks very casual. I think in some cities in New Jersey it could go that way if it were legalized. Gov. Christie might try just decriminalizing it whereby people just get fines when they catch them, the state collects money, the courts are not jammed
up with cases, and if people are discreet they won't have to worry about it.
Actually it is not casual in Colorado Gina it is very Regulated. Stores require licenses which are not easy to get and the ganja must be documented from grower to customer sale.
It is also illegal to smoke in public so your theory that it will be easy to get and people will be smoking in public is incorrect.
I saw a special I think it was on PBS, and the stores that were selling it seemed like they were just selling it giving people a receipt and that was it. I don't know the legalities involved, but I do think that decriminalization would make more people smoke it in a more open way. Even at the Beacon during the ABB concert runs, people would be arrested outside the theatre sometimes, and that did not stop people inside from reportedly smoking at some of the shows. I grew up when those horrible Rockefeller drugs laws were intitiated in New York State, and there was not one concert where people weren't smoking in the venues.
I agree more people will most likely smoke ganja and will be more likely to flaunt the law and smoke it in public but that goes for any regulated product including alcohol and is not an excuse t keep it illegal.
Personally I used to smoke when younger and would most likely do so again on occasion if and when it is legalized here in Mass.
What I do not agree with is that it will be sold at the corner newsstand. If you research the laws in Colorado for instance the growers and stores that sell ganja are highly regulated. Even more so then retail of alcohol.
In any case hopefully we can both agree it is time to end the draconian laws, classifying ganja with hard narcotics, making it illegal and putting people in jail for growing and possession of a plant that is less harmful then tobacco or alcohol.
The wars on drugs has been a failure and all it has done is enrich the cartels, waste taxpayers money and incarcerate thousands of regular people and ruin their lives.
Make it legal, regulate and tax it and use the money to improve peoples living condition.
I don't know. I always thought it was pretty easy to get away with smoking anywhere. sure I've been caught a couple, uh few, times but always just told "don't do that" and take away my weed. with legalization its starting to seem more strict in some ways. I wouldn't say one way or the other what is going to happen over time.......but my lifestyle isn't gonna change one bit. well except that I'm old and don't go to the places I used to go as much if at all.
JMO LH but I don't think legalizing it will make it more strict as it was never legal to smoke in public anywhere in any case. I can see it being nothing more than a ticket if caught smoking in public if came down to it. Sort of like the open container laws in many parts of the country.
What it does is make if legal to buy and smoke it and it also allows the consumer to know what quality he is getting when buys from a regulated retail shop.
when I say more strict I mean more people opening their mouths to say something to you about it where my experience is people really didn't care. even the cops, unless you fit a certain profile. issuing tickets generates money so there is an incentive to speak up to someone smoking in public. arresting people for smoking in public or anywhere else for that matter in the past was more expensive for the state than issuing a ticket. time will tell.
Just got legalized here... I voted for it, and I don't even partake. It is less dangerous than most of the head-meds being pushed by big pharma and their psychiatrist lackeys, and certainly less dangerous than nicotine and alcohol. Yes, you shouldn't spliff up behind the wheel, but there are lots of perfectly legal things it is idiotic to do behind the wheel so what's one more?
Re presidential nominations? Why even discuss it, it will be Hilary and Jeb. We are doomed either way.
Perhaps Christie is merely afraid that all the potheads with munchies will eat up his brownies?
Just one more reason why he will be unelectable. Right now he is bowing to the far right who have labeled him as moderate. He will have to flip his opinion on this topic and many of his other views should he get the Republican nod in order to win over enough Independents to win a general election but then he would piss off the far righters who nominated him. It is an extremely weird formula the Republicans use in these Presidential election cycles. Nominate someone who is far right or force someone who isn't far right to make themselves look like they are far right to appease those on the far right and then flip back after getting nominated alienating those who just got them nominated to appease moderate Independent voters and moderate democrat voters. LOL! A losing formula every time!!!
It is an extremely weird formula the Republicans use in these Presidential election cycles. Nominate someone who is far right or force someone who isn't far right to make themselves look like they are far right to appease those on the far right and then flip back after getting nominated alienating those who just got them nominated to appease moderate Independent voters and moderate democrat voters. LOL! A losing formula every time!!!
Who are some of these "far right" candidates they have nominated? If they ever would nominate one, that would solve the flipping/moderation problem instantly. We seem to agree on this premise time and time again.
Hilarious Clinton or Jebba the Bush. End of story. End of America as we knew it.
It is an extremely weird formula the Republicans use in these Presidential election cycles. Nominate someone who is far right or force someone who isn't far right to make themselves look like they are far right to appease those on the far right and then flip back after getting nominated alienating those who just got them nominated to appease moderate Independent voters and moderate democrat voters. LOL! A losing formula every time!!!
Who are some of these "far right" candidates they have nominated? If they ever would nominate one, that would solve the flipping/moderation problem instantly. We seem to agree on this premise time and time again.
Correct on your part albeit with the parsing of words "nominated" still begs the question of a far right candidate being electable in a Presidential Election. Do you truly believe a candidate right of center can win the WH?
Of the potential candidates mentioned for this election, there is a good chance that many will run for GOP nomination. I believe many have swarmed to New Hampshire this weekend. So you throw in Cruz, Perry, Huckabee, Scott Walker, and Trump as a start, alloak. Tell us which of these do you think could actually win the WH?
My bet to you is still open. I'll take any Dem. candidate and you get the entire GOP field. $100.00 says you lose. My winnings go to inner city poverty charities. You won't even do a small bet like that, will you? Are you not a betting person, lack confidence in all that you post about conservatives winning, or does you logic tell you it would be a foolish bet on your behalf?
Why bet at all? The game is rigged!
Hilarious Clinton or Jebba the Bush. End of story. End of America as we knew it.
If true, these two candidates aren't really that different from one another. Both are hawks, both have very strong ties to the financial sector, both are in the pockets of big oil, big Pharm, big insurance, etc. Hiliary is as much a moderate Republican as Jeb is.
Hilarious Clinton or Jebba the Bush. End of story. End of America as we knew it.
If true, these two candidates aren't really that different from one another. Both are hawks, both have very strong ties to the financial sector, both are in the pockets of big oil, big Pharm, big insurance, etc. Hiliary is as much a moderate Republican as Jeb is.
Pretty accurate but the social values of the parties that each will advocate for are quite different. When the general elections hit full steam, those differences will be made perfectly clear (at least from the Dem. side ) and unless the GOP candidates attempt to go quiet on social issues instead of attempting to sell their true beliefs.
It is an extremely weird formula the Republicans use in these Presidential election cycles. Nominate someone who is far right or force someone who isn't far right to make themselves look like they are far right to appease those on the far right and then flip back after getting nominated alienating those who just got them nominated to appease moderate Independent voters and moderate democrat voters. LOL! A losing formula every time!!!
Who are some of these "far right" candidates they have nominated? If they ever would nominate one, that would solve the flipping/moderation problem instantly. We seem to agree on this premise time and time again.
Correct on your part albeit with the parsing of words "nominated" still begs the question of a far right candidate being electable in a Presidential Election. Do you truly believe a candidate right of center can win the WH?
Of the potential candidates mentioned for this election, there is a good chance that many will run for GOP nomination. I believe many have swarmed to New Hampshire this weekend. So you throw in Cruz, Perry, Huckabee, Scott Walker, and Trump as a start, alloak. Tell us which of these do you think could actually win the WH?
My bet to you is still open. I'll take any Dem. candidate and you get the entire GOP field. $100.00 says you lose. My winnings go to inner city poverty charities. You won't even do a small bet like that, will you? Are you not a betting person, lack confidence in all that you post about conservatives winning, or does you logic tell you it would be a foolish bet on your behalf?
That was my point. They know the far right candidates can't win so they nominate the candidate who was moderate but only after they force him to publicly flip long held opinions on major issues in order to seem far right making them look like nothing but phonies in the end.
Is flip-flopping a bad thing? It seems to me that it might be wise to flip-flop every once in a while as new info develops and the world evolves.
I wonder what Hillary and Jeb think of the current Senate bill to reschedule marijuana from level I to level II? Do they support it, would they sign such a bill? Or are they in fact in favor of moving it to level III (which i believe is the same level as alcohol and tobacco).
I believe neither support any marijuana reform which is yet another reason to not vote for either on in my opinion..Both hypocrites on this issue.
Yeah, Christie's a gas bag and I wouldn't vote for him if he ran for dog catcher ... or the guy who removes the dead animals from the highway. But at least he says what he means on the subject.
Fact is, ALL OF THE CANDIDATES - ALL OF THE POLITICIANS run from the discussion of cannabis legalization like it was a lit stick of dynamite! This is a PEOPLES issue! We don't need these professional government teat suckers deciding what we can do with our own lives and bodies. We don't elect these folks to be mommy and daddy! Just make sure the roads are paved, the mail gets delivered and that we bomb the living daylights out of ___insert name of current offending nation here ____ whenever they get uppity!
I also wish the media would submit questions to every candidate on the issue and then ask them to explain the ensuing double-talk that will make up their reply!
I wonder what Hillary and Jeb think of the current Senate bill to reschedule marijuana from level I to level II? Do they support it, would they sign such a bill? Or are they in fact in favor of moving it to level III (which i believe is the same level as alcohol and tobacco).
I believe neither support any marijuana reform which is yet another reason to not vote for either on in my opinion..Both hypocrites on this issue.
The reality is that when we pick a candidate to vote for, we'll never find any one candidate that gets a check mark in each of our own individual preference boxes on a myriad of issues. Therefore we have two practical choices - 1) voting for the candidate that comes closest to personal preferences on some sort of individual rating criteria or 2) sitting out an election.
I wonder what Hillary and Jeb think of the current Senate bill to reschedule marijuana from level I to level II? Do they support it, would they sign such a bill? Or are they in fact in favor of moving it to level III (which i believe is the same level as alcohol and tobacco).
I believe neither support any marijuana reform which is yet another reason to not vote for either on in my opinion..Both hypocrites on this issue.
The reality is that when we pick a candidate to vote for, we'll never find any one candidate that gets a check mark in each of our own individual preference boxes on a myriad of issues. Therefore we have two practical choices - 1) voting for the candidate that comes closest to personal preferences on some sort of individual rating criteria or 2) sitting out an election.
Of course....But as mentioned above, I wish the media would at least ask all the candidates in a more forceful way what their stance is on the marijuana issue. Hell, on lots of issues they never force them on and allow them to skirt away from.
In my opinion reform of marijuana prohibition is the next gay marriage. That is to say it's a subject that has very quickly polled in favor of legalization on a national level. Also, it's an issue that literally effects thousands upon thousands of individuals. Specifically those that are currently incarcerated as felons or have been released from prison for low level dealing or possession and still no longer can vote, qualify for student aid, housing assistance, etc...
Meanwhile are current stoner in chief also refuses to deal with these loss of rights and continued police state tactics and billions spent on a failed war. It's frustrating to say the least when Barak Obama also proves himself to be a tremendous hypocrite on the issue. And he has NOTHING to lose given his second term is well under way and in fact near an end. This is one war the public also supports ending Bam. So start ending it!
[Edited on 4/19/2015 by Chain]
I wonder what Hillary and Jeb think of the current Senate bill to reschedule marijuana from level I to level II? Do they support it, would they sign such a bill? Or are they in fact in favor of moving it to level III (which i believe is the same level as alcohol and tobacco).
I believe neither support any marijuana reform which is yet another reason to not vote for either on in my opinion..Both hypocrites on this issue.
The reality is that when we pick a candidate to vote for, we'll never find any one candidate that gets a check mark in each of our own individual preference boxes on a myriad of issues. Therefore we have two practical choices - 1) voting for the candidate that comes closest to personal preferences on some sort of individual rating criteria or 2) sitting out an election.
Of course....But as mentioned above, I wish the media would at least ask all the candidates in a more forceful way what their stance is on the marijuana issue. Hell, on lots of issues they never force them on and allow them to skirt away from.
In my opinion reform of marijuana prohibition is the next gay marriage. That is to say it's a subject that has very quickly polled in favor of legalization on a national level. Also, it's an issue that literally effects thousands upon thousands of individuals. Specifically those that are currently incarcerated as felons or have been released from prison for low level dealing or possession and still no longer can vote, qualify for student aid, housing assistance, etc...
Meanwhile are current stoner in chief also refuses to deal with these loss of rights and continued police state tactics and billions spent on a failed war. It's frustrating to say the least when Barak Obama also proves himself to be a tremendous hypocrite on the issue. And he has NOTHING to lose given his second term is well under way and in fact near an end. This is one war the public also supports ending Bam. So start ending it!
[Edited on 4/19/2015 by Chain]
It should be legalized nationally for recreational & medical purposes. Unfortunately politicians seem to be the last to the dance. Obama may not be on board as we'd like, but it's also a Republican dominated Congress who want to flex their muscles - for but one example we only need to look back a month or so ago when the GOP started making threats when District of Columbia legalized pot.
This is another of those 100 year issues I refer to in that generations from now people will look back at the political resistance of our current day society on many issues and say, "Really?"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/25/politics/republicans-dc-pot-legalization/
I wonder what Hillary and Jeb think of the current Senate bill to reschedule marijuana from level I to level II? Do they support it, would they sign such a bill? Or are they in fact in favor of moving it to level III (which i believe is the same level as alcohol and tobacco).
I believe neither support any marijuana reform which is yet another reason to not vote for either on in my opinion..Both hypocrites on this issue.
The reality is that when we pick a candidate to vote for, we'll never find any one candidate that gets a check mark in each of our own individual preference boxes on a myriad of issues. Therefore we have two practical choices - 1) voting for the candidate that comes closest to personal preferences on some sort of individual rating criteria or 2) sitting out an election.
Of course....But as mentioned above, I wish the media would at least ask all the candidates in a more forceful way what their stance is on the marijuana issue. Hell, on lots of issues they never force them on and allow them to skirt away from.
In my opinion reform of marijuana prohibition is the next gay marriage. That is to say it's a subject that has very quickly polled in favor of legalization on a national level. Also, it's an issue that literally effects thousands upon thousands of individuals. Specifically those that are currently incarcerated as felons or have been released from prison for low level dealing or possession and still no longer can vote, qualify for student aid, housing assistance, etc...
Meanwhile are current stoner in chief also refuses to deal with these loss of rights and continued police state tactics and billions spent on a failed war. It's frustrating to say the least when Barak Obama also proves himself to be a tremendous hypocrite on the issue. And he has NOTHING to lose given his second term is well under way and in fact near an end. This is one war the public also supports ending Bam. So start ending it!
[Edited on 4/19/2015 by Chain]
It should be legalized nationally for recreational & medical purposes. Unfortunately politicians seem to be the last to the dance. Obama may not be on board as we'd like, but it's also a Republican dominated Congress who want to flex their muscles - for but one example we only need to look back a month or so ago when the GOP started making threats when District of Columbia legalized pot.
This is another of those 100 year issues I refer to in that generations from now people will look back at the political resistance of our current day society on many issues and say, "Really?"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/25/politics/republicans-dc-pot-legalization//blockquote >
Indeed, it's a Republican controlled Congress. However, since Obama seems to want to play politics with the Marijuana issue (that's how I view his inaction and complete capitulation on this issue), from a political stance it actually would benefit his party going into 2016 if he came out in favor of reform and at the same time used his status to call out the Republican party as the one refusing reform. Instead he seems almost oblivious to the issue.
He's barely made a peep about the bipartisan sponsored bill now making its way through the Senate. For the life of me I see absolutely no risk is his supporting reform at the federal level. After all, the states still can control reform individually. Changing the federal classification merely opens the door for states to move through it....Nothing says they have to. My one glimmer of hope is that his intent is to via executive order change the classification just prior to leaving office right in time for the election in fall 2016....
Happy 420 Christie!!!
Happy 420 Christie!!!
The Prez chimed in on nationalization of pot.
When asked about where the U.S. stands on the legalization of marijuana, Obama uttered 15 words sure to send shivers down the spines of marijuana supporters:
I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis.
President Obama's expanded commentary went as follows:
Right now, that is not federal policy, and I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis. But I do think that if there are states that show that they are not suddenly a magnet for additional crime, that they have a strong enough public health infrastructure to push against the potential for increased addiction, then it's conceivable that it will spur on a national debate. But that is going to be some time off.
No shivers down my spine.
If Obama said the sky was blue congress would pass legislation saying it was green.
The best way to get congress to change the law would be for Obama to say we're gonna go all krispey kremes christie and crack down.
The gop would be rushing to legalize in a heartbeat.
I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis.
President Obama's expanded commentary went as follows:
Right now, that is not federal policy, and I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis. But I do think that if there are states that show that they are not suddenly a magnet for additional crime, that they have a strong enough public health infrastructure to push against the potential for increased addiction, then it's conceivable that it will spur on a national debate. But that is going to be some time off.
I thought marijuana wasn't addictive.
Why doesn't he use his pen and his phone?
Comments like President Obama's are the epitome of politicians passing the buck on this issue. Blame it on congress? Yeah, okay. Sure. Whatever. But this shouldn't be a congress issue! Whatever happened to "government FOR THE PEOPLE - BY THE PEOPLE"?
Polls and surveys since the early 1970's have shown that THE PEOPLE support absolute legalization. This is something that should be put on a ballot to allow THE PEOPLE to decide on.
Read up on the history of the "illegalization" of cannabis. Not only was this a backroom deal between a couple of wealthy cats (Hearst and Dupont) who had vested interests in synthetic materials (that would serve instead of hemp/cannabis) - it was also a move against the very class(es) of people that they perceived to be the users of cannabis (blacks and Mexicans). They used all sorts of propagandistic tactics to persuade folks of the alleged dangers of cannabis. Depending on who they were addressing, cannabis would either turn people (blacks and mexicans) into lethal psycho-killers or in other cases (military) turn soldiers into tree-hugging pacifists. There was NEVER A VOTE BY THE CITIZENS.
In places like Florida, they even came up with laws requiring a "super majority" (60%) to pass a law in favor of medicinal marijuana. The bill didn't really lose - it just didn't win by enough (literally 58.5% in favor). Al Gore would've been screaming for a re-count! Florida voters should have screamed "FOUL!".
As stated, politicians step around the issue like it was a turd on the sidewalk! The press gives them all a pass!
Figures the conservatives would leverage this issue to somehow blame Obama.
Does it really surprise anyone that Federal politicians will not take a firm stand on this issue? That is the state of our politics today where politicians running for President and or Congress avoid taking a stand on any controversial issue for fear of losing votes. Just shows how broken our political system is.
In any case, IMHO, it is irrelevant that the Feds have not decriminalized ganja as the genie is out of the bottle at the State level and the momentum will continue building as more an more States legalize it's use and sale.
Comments like President Obama's are the epitome of politicians passing the buck on this issue. Blame it on congress? Yeah, okay. Sure. Whatever.
You would expect something else?
The first two years of the Obama regime, the Democrats had all the power and the votes. Why didn't they legalize it then? Obama wasn't blaming Congress at that time.
The first two years of the Obama regime, the Democrats had all the power and the votes. Why didn't they legalize it then? Obama wasn't blaming Congress at that time.
Bizarre. When did the Obama administration ever say they wanted to nationally legalize pot?
