361–370 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You described a worst-case scenario. I’d rather smoke Marlboro Greens, and I promised myself 20 years ago I’d never spend another penny with them.
Marboro Green with 200 hundred additional chemical additives for your enjoyment.
I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to…
I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to…
I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to…
Other than that, nothing is likely to change unless states walk back the laws they've already passed.
Remember, it's already illegal on the federal level for these businesses to exist, and that isn't stopping them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support it and this has not substantially changed in over 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx I'm sorry, am I reading the data incorrectly, or your comment incorrectly? > Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?…
the wording of the questions aren't good, but the states that have recently banned it certainly seem to be catering to the 13% who say illegal under all circumstances, due to the extremeness of the actual laws passed before Roe was overturned I would have considered myself pro life because I don't believe in late term abortions, but with the new legal landscape I've become effectively pro choice because the new laws…
I believe there are many, on "both sides."
I deeply appreciate your reply. This is extremely important.
The wording is what it's all about. When we put it into terms like "pro-life"/"pro-choice" - it does nothing to address the hard realities which need to be addressed when writing law.
We all keep getting played by yes/no, right/left, binary word game slogans. The realities are so much more complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's the measurement for success? It's not "the number of people who try hard drugs", which isn't a particularly interesting or meaningful number (lots of people, including myself, try hard drugs but never end up hooked on them and are productive members of society). Try "the amount of harm caused to society". The drug war destroys more lives than hard drugs. It's a policy failure.
> The drug war destroys more lives than hard drugs. It's a policy failure. Again, this does not seem as clear as you attempt to present it. In areas with decriminalized hard drugs, drug usage dramatically increased. It has a direct impact on the lives of the users, and also secondary impacts on the lives of everyone around them and/or has to deal with them. Drug usage is not the so-called "victimless" crime some posi…
Absolutely. I'm no stranger to the impact of drug abuse, as I've had family and close friends become addicts.
Even so, the drug war is way worse. It adds violence and danger to drug use, making it more dangerous for users and those in their proximity. It increases policing and police militarization and violence. Punishments for possession destroy families and career prospects.
Every ounce of prevention bought by the drug war costs a pound of pain.
> Drug usage is not the so-called "victimless" crime some position it as. It has a lot of effects on society as a whole.
Responsible drug use is pretty victimless. Drug abuse has victims. But that's no different than alcohol, and banning that also caused way more harm than it prevented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of them have wiggled around this problem by offering “atms” at the cash register. You pay with a debit card, but it’s not a normal transaction, it’s an ATM withdrawal! I don’t understand how the money is vended to the business, but it keeps it out of the store
there is still a lot of cash on site due to the presence of an ATM though, and in the cash registers. the primary problem is that weed shops are incredibly attractive robbery targets due to being one of the few businesses in 2024 that handle large amounts of cash.
They have cash-handling processes similar to a casino, but again, they have much less than a casino or bank to take.
Employee theft is a much bigger problem than robbery, because you can imagine who works at them, but even then, it's hard to get away with.
You'd be much better off robbing a busy gas station or the like.
I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of rule should be made by an executive agency, empowered by a congressional delegation of that rule-making power to that agency. This is just the same principle as private organization boards of directors delegating the minutia of running the organization to the executives and their teams. If you think it would be madness for hiring decisions on individual contributors to be made by board votes, then you sh…
> voters remain free to replace the executive the next time around Note that there are only either 538 or 100 voters, depending on which position in the executive branch.
Or, if someone gets his way, just 1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those short pillars are called bollards.
Every fan of physics is recommended to look up bollard test videos.