Marijuana is finally on the ballot!

[Xorv]

How dare they! Marihuana contains 10x more carcinogens than cigarettes! Not to mention that Reefer is the reason why cancer even exist! I mean holy shit Marihuana causes goiters from vitamin A deficiency (because we all know Marijuana is the devil weed and consumes nurtients) and imparies the immune system and endocrine system leading to greater chance of relapse from either mental disorders or histiological disorders (cell related)

 

[razoredge]

Who is being put out of work by the legalization of marijuana? The law enforcement agents fighting the "war on ******? Also, stop being so condescending and arrogant.

Excuse me ?

What didnt you understand about my statement ?

What is it you suppose "The law enforcement agents fighting the war on weed" would now be doing ? If I was talking about them.

What was condesending and arrogant in what I said ?

What was condesending and arrogant about you telling me how to speak ?

 

[razoredge]

The gangs and cartels that profit off of drug trafficking will simply drop marijuana off of their list and focus on the other drugs which they have already been trafficking in the first place.

Thanks for understanding what I was talking about. But I dont think all weed is associated with gangs and cartels, there is alot of "light weight" weed dealers, criminal for no other reason. But you point about focusing on other drugs and crime was what I was talking about. So many speak of legalization as something thats going to make criminal activity recede, it will just displace it.

 

[Tonka Time]

There is always going to be crime, why not legalize every drug?

 

[wandering_taco]

I think decriminalized is more something that is still illegal, but you like don't go to jail for it; i.e. think of a parking ticket. I believe decriminalized may be an applicable term for how it is in Ann Arbor, MI; it's just like a 25 dollar fine if you get caught with pot, you don't get arrested.


And I really don't want the big tobacco companies to even touch pot if it's legalized, they will fucking ruin it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Marijuana possession in some amount (I don't care cuz I don't smoke it ) is decriminalized in MA...you just get fined for having more than the allowed amount or something.

 

[razoredge]

that was always my understanding. Decriminalized meant its a misdomeaner rather than a felony but still goes on your SS#. NY State went to decriminalizing 5/8ths of an ounce or less... or something along those lines way back in the 70's but I dont know what if anything has been changed.

 

[waif]

Off topic, and I'm sorry, but:

The top line of the March 19-21 CNN/Opinion Research poll showed that by 59 percent to 39 percent, voters opposed the bill that the House was about to vote on.
But when asked why, 13 percent of those opposed said the bill was "not liberal enough." Add them to the 39 percent in favor, and the balance came out 52 percent in support and 43 percent against, just about President Barack Obama's margin of victory in 2008.

Anyone notice an issue with that math?
By my calculations, it's actually more like 46.67% in favor. Now, Dodens didn't mention his source, but the fact that they're that shitty at math suggests that maybe it's not terribly credible.

 

[Srontgorrth]

Thanks for understanding what I was talking about. But I dont think all weed is associated with gangs and cartels, there is alot of "light weight" weed dealers, criminal for no other reason. But you point about focusing on other drugs and crime was what I was talking about. So many speak of legalization as something thats going to make criminal activity recede, it will just displace it.

True true, but weed is generally bought into the country by people that have the means to do it, which, most of the time, are gangs. Once it gets to a city, it trickles in through various dealers, gang related or not, and gets used.

I actually do think if all drugs were to be decriminalized, it would cripple gangs throughout the United States, as that is how they do make a lot of their money. Some of it would be displaced yes, but it would suffer to an extreme amount and slowly collapse. Of course gangs would still be around, but I don't think nearly to the point they are at now.

 

[Pessimism]

Off topic, and I'm sorry, but:

Anyone notice an issue with that math?
By my calculations, it's actually more like 46.67% in favor. Now, Dodens didn't mention his source, but the fact that they're that shitty at math suggests that maybe it's not terribly credible.

59-13= 46%, 39+13=52%; so technically the vote would be 52% in favor (if it was more "liberal"), 46% against. Margin of error or undecided would account for the missing 2%. Where did you get the decimal?

Either way, the math in the article is wrong by both our maths, but they might be accounting for figures that weren't listed - which is a variable we have against us.

 

[Valerie]

The bill would make it legal for people 21 and older to posess up to (not more than) one ounce, and if you were to buy one once, you would be taxed $50 on top of whatever the base price is. You'd be able to grow it, but I don't think you'd be able to sell it.

Decriminalized means if you currently get cought with a certain amount, you'll get fined, but won't go to jail. If you have more than a certain amount, the cops will think you're intending to sell it and you will go to jail.

 

[razoredge]

True true, but weed is generally bought into the country by people that have the means to do it, which, most of the time, are gangs. Once it gets to a city, it trickles in through various dealers, gang related or not, and gets used.

I actually do think if all drugs were to be decriminalized, it would cripple gangs throughout the United States, as that is how they do make a lot of their money. Some of it would be displaced yes, but it would suffer to an extreme amount and slowly collapse. Of course gangs would still be around, but I don't think nearly to the point they are at now.

quite a bit is grown here, some by a more criminal element than others.

I always wonder what such people would turn to next without the drug trade, I doubt little would be positive, theres not much work in the urban areas for the size of the population even in good economic times.

 

[unknown]

The bill would make it legal for people 21 and older to posess up to (not more than) one ounce, and if you were to buy one once, you would be taxed $50 on top of whatever the base price is. You'd be able to grow it, but I don't think you'd be able to sell it.

sweet jesus :zombie:

 

[Valerie]

The tax isn't so bad, an ounce is a pretty fair amount of weed:

Most people probably wouldn't buy that much at once.

 

[razoredge]

not anymore but at one time it was common

shits too expensive... since the 80's, was cheap in the early/mid70's

 

[waif]

59-13= 46%, 39+13=52%; so technically the vote would be 52% in favor (if it was more "liberal"), 46% against. Margin of error or undecided would account for the missing 2%. Where did you get the decimal?

Either way, the math in the article is wrong by both our maths, but they might be accounting for figures that weren't listed - which is a variable we have against us.

Okay, I understand people overlooking it on the first read through, but now I have to question your math skills.

"13 % of those opposed" - not 13% of the total sample. So .13 x .59 = .0767, meaning 7.67% of the total sample were opposed to the bill because it wasn't liberal enough. You add that to the 39%. Sometimes having taken a statistics course feels like having a superpower.

 

[Pessimism]

Question away. It's been ages since I've picked up a stats book, and I can't say I intend to pick one up again anytime soon

Although now on the runthrough I see exactly what you are saying.

 

[waif]

When reading the article it's easy to miss out on it (I mean, Dodens is pretty bright and obviously he did) but I can't see how anyone with decent math skills could have written it.

 

[Srontgorrth]

quite a bit is grown here, some by a more criminal element than others.

I always wonder what such people would turn to next without the drug trade, I doubt little would be positive, theres not much work in the urban areas for the size of the population even in good economic times.

True, in fact last week the assistant supervisor was talking about how he grew a crapload of it

But those people would have to turn to something, and probably away from gang life if it wasn't supporting them. On top of that, less people would be lured into it, and numbers would go down.

And holy crap, one ounce is a damn lot. nom nom nom

 

[Lateralus14]

Okay, I understand people overlooking it on the first read through, but now I have to question your math skills.

"13 % of those opposed" - not 13% of the total sample. So .13 x .59 = .0767, meaning 7.67% of the total sample were opposed to the bill because it wasn't liberal enough. You add that to the 39%. Sometimes having taken a statistics course feels like having a superpower.

Plus some of those in favor would likely become opposed with a more liberal bill, so there would be some loss with the gain of supporters.