Well, well…
5 Likes
At least weed has more benefits than alcohol and cigarettes, cannabis use is already normalized to the majority so it shouldn’t make any difference.
7 Likes
4 Likes
I think NY’s approach on public consumption is 100% the correct approach - if you can smoke tobacco in a public space why should you not also be able to smoke cannabis? In an urban area there are a lot of people who cannot, for one reason or another, consume where they live or are staying. If they can’t smoke in a place where tobacco smoking is allowed… legalization looks really different for them.
I think most of us would acknowledge legalization of cannabis may not be good for everyone… but much of what the opinion piece’s author mentions is basically bullshit, claiming that there’s a causal relationship on several points where there’s likely more of a relational link. The biggest tell, to me, though is when he says that legalization would “degrade the culture.”
IMO states shouldn’t allow communities to opt out. In VT communities need to hold a vote to opt-in, if they are going to allow dispensaries, but they cannot opt-out altogether.
5 Likes
We had a suburb opt out and then flip flop because they realized they were screwing themselves out of revenue. Then they tell bullshit stories about protecting people from the illegal market.
4 Likes
Re: the op ed,
I have 5 intoxicating things in my medicine cabinet that are not detectable by roadside tests.
And there’s way too much of “think of the children” going on here which is a 3000 year old euphemism for “I don’t like it.”
5 Likes
Also states can write laws such that police can make a determination about a person’s ability to drive, even if they can’t show that the person is intoxicated. I can’t remember the term they use for it but they have that in Mass. The guy’s a lawyer, he knows you can write laws that narrowly deal with an issue, not broad brush attack something much bigger because of minor issues that can be dealt with.
3 Likes
I think the term you are looking for is “police state.”
4 Likes
I wouldn’t say that, actually, in that I doubt it comes up often, and when it’s used there’s probably some reason for it. I admit Mass is a probably an outlier.
3 Likes
RIDE programs (alcohol roadblocks) up here are legal because one lawyer refused to give a breath sample because it’s unlawful but it was determined that it’s in the interests of the public good.
2 Likes
They can make you take a breathylizer? In Mass you can refuse, but you automatically lose your license. Most lawyers who do DUI/OUI work would tell you to refuse anyway.
3 Likes
I don’t know off the top of my head what the penalties for refusal are.
I’m usually against curtailing of freedoms but for drunk driving I will make an exception.
Edit: it’s something like “failure to comply” which is a criminal offense.
4 Likes
Potential cigarette ban…yikes!
3 Likes
I mean, it’s the NY Post.
The story is a politicized nothingburger. NY’s health dept asking a survey question about banning sales (not possession) altogether is hardly the same thing as the governor banning something. There’s also a Fox Business report on it, and it’s spun the same way “Pro-pot governor!”
It isn’t going to happen. They couldn’t even manage to ban flavored tobacco products.
3 Likes
6 Likes
3 Likes
that sounds like a bad policy, the part about being against curtailing freedoms.
1 Like
Freedoms: good
Drunk driving: bad
3 Likes
zero tolerance: bad
freedoms: it depends
drunk driving: bad
1 Like
You sure about that ??
1 Like